UC-NRLF 


GIFT  OF 


^r^ie^>^Ji4^oJk>     tg>^^:;^^ 


.^ 


Kjvr>  X. 


OCT   6    1915 


EUROPE  BLED  WHITE 


FBOM    THE    PRESIDEOT^S    OFFIC. 
TO  THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRAE^ 


SECOND    EDITION 


1^   v-^    '     ^ 


/ 


FOREWORD. 

As  a  loj^al  Amepkan  citizen,  proud  of  Ms 
Teutonic  birth,  I  feel  it  is  my  duty  to  com- 
ply with  the  urgent  requests  of  a  great  num- 
ber of  my  American  friends,  who  realize  that 
there  must  be  "another  side"  to  the  European 
War,  different  from  the  side  shown  by  our 
American  press,  to  present  my  personal  view- 
point, and  I  have,  therefore,  succinctly  sum- 
marized in  the  following  pages  what  I  hon- 
estly believe  to  be  authentic  data  that  I  hope 
may  be  thus  accepted  by  those  who  have 
known  me  longest  and  best. 


E.  STAUFFEN. 


New  York, 
November,  1914. 


SECOND  EDITION. 

The  kindly  reception,  not  only  by  pro-German,  but  also  by 
pro-Ally  and  neutral  readers,  accorded  to  the  first  edition  and 
the  appearance  of  niw  and  salient  facts  prompt  me  to  issue  a 
second  and  revised.  ejlitLon., 

/••..  ••  .*.•••  • : ': :.  1  •*...•*  E.  S. 

May,  1915. 


a^ 


EUROPE  BLED  WHITE. 

War  is  always  what  Sherman  called  it !  The  present  Euro- 
pean War  is  not  only  the  gr^^test  but  the  most  calamitous 
catastrophe  in  history.  Literal  believers  in  Biblical  prophecy 
as  well  as  some  European  Diplomats  say  that  this  war  had  to 
come  sometime.  Bismarck  foresaw  it,  Napoleon  prophesied  it, 
and  Peter  the  Great  drew  military  plans  for  it.  It  was  not 
an  unpremeditated  clash  of  arms.  It  was  the  crushing  climax 
of  years  of  perfidious  diplomacy  and  infamous  intrigue.  The 
Servian  murder  of  Austro-Hungary.'s  heir-apparent  broke  the 
last  link  in  the  chain  of  European  Peace  and  let  loose  the  Dogs 
of  War. 

In  order  that  we  may  dispassionately  analyze  the  course  of 
events  and  logically  trace  results  from  their  initiatory  causes 
let  us  briefly  review  some  of  the  most  salient  episodes  in  com- 
paratively recent  European  history. 

Three  Great  Forces  Have  For  Years  Made  For  a  Universal 

European  War. 

Russia's  Pan- Slavic  program,  France's  "Revanche"  and 
England's  commercial  jealousy  of  Germany. 

Russians  Reason. 

Russia,  in  brute  strength  is  the  mightiest  nation  of  the 
future.  She  has  a  population  of  165  millions  with  an  annual 
increase  of  3  millions  and  an  area  2%  times  as  large  as  that 
of  the  United  States  of  America  and  proportionately  rich  in 
natural  resources.  For  centuries  she  has  fought  and  intrigued 
to  gain  possession  of  a  sea  free  from  ice;  one  opening  into  the 
Ocean — "a  mndow"  through  which  she  might  look  upon  the 
world's  commerce  and  civilization.     For  this  she  waged  the 


312435 


disastrous  Crimean  and  Japanese  wars  and  inspired  the  Balkan 
war  of  1912-13.  To  her,  Constantinople  is  not  only  the  Mecca 
that  will  give  her  untrammeled  passage  from  Black  Sea  ports 
through  the  Dardanelles  but  also  a  gateway  to  the  realization 
of  her  centuries-old  dream  of  eventually  ruling  all  of  the  Euro- 
pean continent  as  well  as  the  British  Isles.  In  Kussian  diplo- 
matic circles,  during  recent  years,  it  has  been  repeatedly  said 
"The  road  to  Constantinople  lies  through  Berlin.'' 

Rnssia  has  for  years  conspired  against  the  Austrian  Empire. 
She  has  secretly  and  persistently  fostered  treason  among  the 
Austrian  Slavs,  urged  and  bribed  them  to  revolt,  hoping  to  dis- 
rupt the  Austrian  Empire  and  forever  hem  her  in  with  an 
orthodox  Slavic  girdle,  thus  making  her  stationary  on  the 
Danube  and  practically  powerless  to  help  her  only  logical  ally 
— Germany,  when  the  determined-upon  deluge  of  destruction 
was  to  be  let  loose. 

Russia's  political  creed  was  created  by  Peter  the  Great, 
who  in  his  "will"  says : 

"Clause  9.  Russia  must  incessantly  extend  herself 
towards  the  North,  along  the  Baltic  Sea,  and  toward  the 
South  along  the  Black  Sea.  Our  kingdom  must  advance 
as  far  as  possible  toward  Constantinople  and  the  East 
Indies.  Whoever  shall  reign  there  will  be  the  true  mas- 
ter of  the  World.  Therefore  we  must  excite  continual 
wars,  sometime  with  Turkey,  sometime  with  Persia; 
create  dockyards  on  the  Black  Sea ;  take  possession,  little 
by  little,  of  that  sea  as  well  as  of  the  Baltic,  which  is  a 
point  doubly  necessary  for  the  success  of  the  project; 
we  must  hasten  the  downfall  of  Persia ;  penetrate  as  far 
as  the  Persian  Gulf ;  re-establish,  if  possible,  the  ancient 
commerce  of  the  Levant,  through  Syria;  and  advance  as 
far  as  the  Indies,  which  is  the  emporium  of  the  world. 
When  once  there  we  can  do  without  the  gold  of  England. 
"Clause  10.  Russia  must  carefully  seek  and  keep 
up  the  alliance  with  Austria ;  apparently  second  her  de- 

2 


sign  for  future  domination  of  Germany;  and  we  must 
excite  underhand  against  her  a  jealousy  of  the  Princes. 
We  must  excite  each  and  all  of  these  to  seek  succor  from 
Russia,  and  exercise  a  sort  of  protection  over  the  coun- 
try, which  may  prepare  our  future  domination. 

"Clause  11.     We  must  interest  the  House  of  Austria 
in  the  expulsion  of  the  Turk  from  Europe,  and  neutral- 
ize her  jealousy  after  the  conquest  of  Constantinople, 
either  by  exciting  a  war  between  her  and  the  old  states 
of  Europe,  or  by  giving  up  to  her  part  of  the  conquest, 
to  retake  it  from  her  afterward." 
History  proves  that  Russia  is  constantly  striving  to  work 
out  the  destiny  thus  forecast  hy  Peter  the  Great.     True,  her 
desperate  attempt  to  annex  Manchuria  and  thus  obtain  a  port 
on  either  the  Yellow  or  the  Japanese  sea  was  frustrated  by 
Japan;  but  immediately  after  she  signed  the  Treaty  of  Ports- 
mouth, Russia  showed  her  "good  faith  and  respect  for  her 
diplomatic  honor"  by  actively  resuming  her  efforts  to  secure 
Mongolia  and  in  1912  she  succeeded  in  accomplishing  her  pur- 
pose and  thereby  gained  a  commanding  position  from  which, 
sometime,  she  can  attack  Manchuria  or  China.     That  she  has 
already  begun  "the  downfall  of  Persia"  is  shown  by  her  collabo- 
ration with  England  in  1907  when  these  two  great  world- 
powers,  who  already  possessed  about  half  of  the  earth,  gravely 
divided  Persia, — a  country  almost  as  large  as  the  combined 
areas  of  Germany,  Austria-Hungary  and  France  and  fabulously 
rich  in  mineral  wealth — ^into  three  Zones,  viz :  the  Russian  Zone, 
the  British  Zone,  and  (as  a  mark  of  courteous  condescension) 
the  Persian  Zone.     When  Shuster,  an  American  financier,  at- 
tempted to  reorganize  Persia's  crumbling  financial  system,  and 
put  it  on  a  sound  monetary  basis,  Russia  at  once  objected  and 
forced  Shuster  to  leave  the  country  after  which  she  sent  her 
Cossacks  to  Persia  "to  secure  order," — and  there  they  yet  re- 
main, of  course  at  Persia's  expense,  despite  the  urgent  request 
of  England,  that  they  be  withdrawn.    So  even  while,  as  now, 

3 


the  Russian  Bear  is  on  terms  of  temporary  friendship  with  the 
British  Lion,  he  coolly  ignores  his  erstwhile  allies'  perfectly 
proper  request.  This  autocratic  presumption  of  the  Czar  may 
not  now  portend  anything  to  King  George  but  some  analytical 
minds  believe  that  Russia  even  now  impatiently  bides  her  time 
— she  herself  had  fixed  it  at  1916 — until  she  can  build  up  her 
Navy  to  be  second  only  to  Great  Britain's,  when  she  will  be 
in  a  safe  and  secure  position  "to  abundantly  repay"  England 
for  her  "self-sacrificing  help"  in  the  present  conflict  by  dictating 
terms  to  her. 

William  Bayard  Hale,  confidential  advisor  on  Foreign  Re- 
lations to  our  President  says — 

"Great  Britain  has  already  awakened  to  the  realiza- 
tion that  it  is  not  Germany  the  Anglo-Saxon  has  to  fear. 
.     .     .     The  present  war  will  settle  little  or  nothing, 
especially  in  the  event  that  the  Allies  get  the  best  of  it. 
In  that  case  there  will  ensue  a  war  between  Britain  and 
Russia." 
Russia's  real  animus  in  the  recent  Balkan  war  was  not  so 
much  to  crush  Turkey — ^although  for  centuries  she  has  coveted 
Constantinople — as  it  was  to  deal  a  death-blow  to  Austria- 
Hungary  and  through  her  to  Germany.      And  yet,  although 
Russia's  designs  were  well  known  at  Berlin,  Germany,  for  the 
sake  of  Peace,  stayed  Austria's  hand  at  the  very  beginning  of 
that  war  and  induced  her  not  to  march  her  army  to  Salonika, 
where,  and  when,  Austria  without  doubt  could  have  conquered 
Servia  and  not  only  have  acquired  a  large  territory  but  also 
an  outlet  to  the  Aegean  Sea. 

France^s  "Revanche.^^ 

FRANCE  has  ached,  prayed  and  schemed  for  "Revanche" 
ever  since  1870-71.  Nothing  less  than  the  return  of  the  "Lost 
Provinces,"  Alsace  and  Lorraine,  and  the  refunding  of  the  five 
billion  francs  Franco-Prussian  war  indemnity,  plus  interest  for 
44  years  could  ever  make  her  Parisian  "Strasbourg"  doff  her 

4 


widow's  weeds.  Not  only  the  French  but  most  Americans, 
Englishmen  and  others  than  those  better  versed  in  history  either 
never  knew  or  have  forgotten  that  Alsace  and  Lorraine  were  for 
800  years  German  provinces.  They  were  wrested  from  the  then 
weakened  German  States  by  Louis  XIV  after  he  had  laid  in 
ruins  the  beautiful  Castle  of  Heidelberg  and  devastated  the 
Palatinate.  Even  under  French  rule  Alsace  was  at  heart  more 
German  than  French.  Paris  barely  tolerated  the  Alsatians 
and  considered  them  as  only  "half  French."  Up  to  1870  Strass- 
burg  was  only  an  overgrown  village.  Today,  under  German 
rule,  Strassburg  is  a  palatial  city  with  one  of  the  finest  Uni- 
versities in  the  world.  To  the  credit  of  an  English  author  be 
it  said,  that  in  1891  he  wrote:  "Germany  has  done  more  for 
Alsace-Lorraine  in  20  years  than  France  in  200  years."  France 
despised  rather  than  loved  her  Alsace-Lorraine  until  it  was 
"lost."  Even  now  she  cannot  comprehend  why  Greneral  Joffre's 
recent  address  of  adulation  was  so  indifferently  received  by  the 
"poor  down-trodden  Germanized  Alsatians."  France's  mem- 
ory of  Sedan  is  still  as  bitter  as  it  was  on  that  fateful  day  of 
defeat.  Eesentment,  under  all  circumstances  of  defeat,  is  very 
human.  Official  France  has  never  forgiven  Grermany  for  her 
defeat  in  1870-71.  She  apparently  ignores  the  historic  fact  that 
she  precipitated  the  conflict  by  declaring  war  on  Germany  in 
1870.  It  is  also  well  known  that  in  200  years  France  has  de- 
clared war  on  Germany  thirty  times. 

The  German  Emperor  has  persistently  shown  his  friendly 
feelings  towards  France  and  has  repeatedly  made  strenuous 
efforts  to  establish  friendly  relations  with  France.  France 
has  invariably  and  abruptly  refused  reciprocal  relations  and 
her  continually  increasing  demands  for  "Revanche"  was  one 
of  the  controlling  factors  that  led  to  the  upbuilding  of  Ger- 
many's great  army  of  defense.  "Revenge  on  Germany"  was 
the  keynote  in  France's  alliance  with  Russia.  It  is  said  on 
good  authority  that  up  to  the  end  of  January,  1915,  her  partici- 
pation in  this  war  had  already  cost  Prance  ten  times  as  much 

5 


as  she  had  to  pay  Germany  at  the  end  of  the  Franco-Prussian 
War.  How  much  better  it  would  have  been  for  France  and  for 
Humanity  had  she  arisen  from  the  defeat  of  1870-71  with  a 
nobler  ideal  and  employed  her  rapidly  recuperated  finances,  due 
to  her  innate  thrift,  to  better,  more  humanitarian  purposes  than 
filling  Kussia's  hungry  coffers.  It  cannot  be  successfully  denied 
that  the  last  French  loans  to  Kussia  were  for  military  purposes 
and  specifically,  for  the  development  of  railroads  to  the  Prus- 
sian frontier.  The  French  government,  when  granting  Russia's 
demand  for  financial  assistance  stipulated  "that  Russia  render 
fuller  service  to  the  Alliance  and  take  up  a  firmer  attitude 
toward  Germany."  And  this  exemplifies  France's  sincerity  in 
her  much-heralded  "Liberty,  Fraternity,  Equality." 

England^'s  Antipathy  to  Germany. 

No  act  or  word  of  the  German  Emperor  aroused  English 
antipathy  to  Germany.  An  English  statesman.  The  Right  Hon. 
Thomas  Lough,  M.  P.,  in  "England  and  Germany  by  Leaders  of 
Public  Opinion  in  Both  Empires,"  says: 

"I  have  pointed  to  the  fact  that  for  nearly  a  quarter 
of  a  century  the  present  Emperor  of  Germany  has  never 
used  an  unkind  word  or  promoted  an  unfriendly  act 
towards  Great  Britain."     ♦     ♦     ♦ 
The  same  writer  throws  the  spotlight  of  fact  upon  this  un- 
reasoning antipathy  which  gradually  grew  into  enmity  against 
Germany  in  the  following  words : 

"When  the  Boer  War  drew  to  a  close  the  general  quiet 
of  the  political  horizon  gave  an  opportunity  to  the  Yel- 
low Press  to  look  around  for  some  fresh  fields  in  which 
operations  might  be  carried  on.  The  feeling  of  hostility 
to  Russia,  which  had  survived  with  more  or  less  intensity 
during  the  fifty  years  since  the  Crimean  War,  had  died 
down,  owing  to  the  defeat  of  that  country  by  Japan,  and, 
above  all,  to  the  destruction  of  its  navy.  Long-standing 
quarrels  with  the  U.  S.  of  America  and  France  had  been 

6 


amicably  settled,  so  that  there  was  no  Power  except  Ger- 
many against  which  popular  opinion  could  he  success- 
fully roused.''  ♦  ♦  ♦ 
Lewis  Nixon  of  ship-building  fame — according  to  the  N.  Y. 
German  Herold — wrote  in  the  New  York  Times,  April  4,  1909 ; 
^^Germany  has  more  potential  financial  strength  than  England. 
Germany  is  increasing  more  rapidly  than  England  in  wealth 
and  population.  In  a  mere  endurance  contest,  therefore,  Ger- 
many would  win,  because  her  money  would  hold  out  longer. 
England  knows  this.  And  knowing  it,  England  may  end  this 
contest  very  suddenly  some  day  by  forcing  war  on  Germany.  1 
expect  to  see  w^ithin  five  years  the  most  terrific  war  in  the 
world's  history  between  England  and  Germany."  And  again  in 
the  Evening  Mail  of  April  17  of  the  same  year:  "Look  back 
upon  history  and  you  will  find  that  in  the  case  of  the  Dutch, 
the  French  and  the  Spanish  when  they  severally  reached  the 
grade  of  second  grade  of  naval  power,  if  the  country  aspired  to 
ocean  trade  the  great  force  of  England  w^as  exerted  to  crush  it. 
While  we  have  built  up  a  great  navy  we  have  been  content  to 
remain  in  so  far  as  the  exploitation  of  our  sea  trade  is  con- 
cerned, a  British  colony,  but  Germany  has  not  been  so  unmind- 
ful of  her  destiny,  even  though  not  having  the  God  given  front- 
age that  we  have  on  our  two  oceans." 

Let  us  throw  a  still  stronger  searchlight  into  the  mass  of 
established  facts — all  stepping-stones  to  the  present  gory  con- 
flict— and  thus  determine  just  what  is 

England^s  Animus. 

"John  Bull"  is  always  the  merchant.  Through  a  greater 
mastery  of  detail, — directly  due  to  her  scholastic  system — as 
well  as  originality  and  greater  powers  of  invention  and  creation 
of  almost  innumerable  manufactured  products,  Germany  first 
became  a  noticeable  competitor  and  in  later  years,  because  of 
sheer  merit  of  manufacturing  processes,  exploitation  methods 
and  commercial  policy  ran  a  close  race  with  England  for  her 

7 


vaunted  first  place  in  the  world's  commerce.  Not  only  did 
Germany  compete  with  England  in  the  bulk  and  scope  of  ex- 
portation but  Germany's  flag  flew  from  the  mastheads  of  her 
large  merchant-marine  that  plied  the  great  ocean  roadways. 
Instead  of  emulating  Germany's  example  and  learning  by  pa- 
tient, persistent  study  of  local  trade  conditions  the  needs  of 
foreign  buyers  and  adapting  her  products  and  methods  so  as  to 
meet  them  or  adopting  those  German  methods,  which  were  con- 
ceded, even  by  Britons,  to  be  result-getters,  England  preferred 
to  lament  her  lost  opportunities  and,  in  resentment,  to  scheme 
with  Eussia  and  France,  to  crush  German  enterprise  abroad 
as  well  as  at  home.  In  addition  to  this  constantly  increasing 
trade  jealousy  England  has  for  years  been  haunted  by  the  fear 
of  Germany's  growing  navy,  and  her  daily  papers  have  given  a 
wide  circulation  to  such  fantastic  rumors  as  that  Germany  was 
secretly  tunnelling  the  English  channel  so  as  to  throw  her  great 
army  in  overwhelming  masses  upon  London  at  some  opportune 
time.  England's  intervention  in  the  present  conflict  has  been 
tersely  proclaimed  by  the  German  Ambassador  to  America  as 
"the  unreasoning  climax  of  that  unjustifiable  fear  of  Germany, 
which  has  troubled  her  for  years." 

Militarism  vs.  Sea-Sovereignty. 

England,  for  generations  mistress  of  the  seven  seas,  assumes 
by  both  Divine  Eight,  and  because  of  her  insular  location,  that 
she  alone  has  the  privilege  of  maintaining  a  mighty  Navy.  Ac- 
cording to  her  political  creed  no  continental  nation,  and  least  of 
all  her  most  aggressive  and  progressive  commercial  competitor 
— Germany,  has  any  right  to  own  more  than  a  negligible  aggre- 
gation of  warcraft,  even  for  defensive  purposes. 

Great  Britain  not  only  wants  to  have  all  continental  im- 
ports and  exports  pass  the  mouths  of  her  bristling  guns  at 
Dover,  but  she  also  demands  that  her  Sea-Sovereignty  shall 
never  be  successfully  challenged.  Is  Britain's  mighty  fleet 
an  instrument  of  Peace?    And  yet,  who  ever  hears  much  un- 

8 


reasoning  criticism  of  England's  maritime  miltarism?  Ger- 
many, with  her  ever  increasing  export  business  and  her  large 
fleet  of  merchantmen  afloat,  considers  that  she  is  strictly 
within  her  privileges  as  a  World-Power,  when  she  perfects  a 
modern  navy,  powerful  enough  to  protect  and  defend  the  integ- 
rity of  her  enormous  oceanic  business.  Further,  because  of 
her  being  hemmed  in  between  France  and  Russia,  and  the  con- 
sequent need  of  being  properly  prepared  to  defend  her  homes 
against  possible  and  always  probable  invasion  by  land,  her 
people  have  willingly  and  liberally  contributed  in  money  and 
service  to  the  up-building  of  a  magnificent  army  for  defense. 

Sir  Rufus  D.  Isaacs  in  "England  and  Germany  by  Leaders 
of  Public  Opinion  in  both  Empires,"  says:  "We  must  bear 
in  mind  that  for  Germany,  with  her  three  land-frontiers,  a  pow- 
erful army  is  essential  and  that  to  protect  her  trade  interests, 
her  food  supply,  and  her  foreign  possessions,  to  maintain  her 
prestige  and  to  render  her  Diplomacy  effective,  a  strong  Navy 
is  equally  needed."  And  yet,  who  has  not  heard  Germany's 
land  militarism  denounced  with  merciless  severity?  England's 
latest  "reason  why"  she  went  to  war  is  to  "crush  Germany's 
militarism."  Why  even  Bernhardi  never  aspired  to  be  as 
much  of  a  militarist  as  Roberts  was  and  Kitchener  is.  Does 
any  one — least  of  all  an  Englishman — believe  that  if  "Ger- 
many's militarism"  were  utterly  crushed  and  absolutely  up- 
rooted England  would  reduce  her  two  Power  standard  navy? 
In  the  name  of  Justice  and  Fair  Play,  why  make  "fish"  of 
England  and  "fowl"  of  Germany,  when  each  parallels  the 
other's  military  activities — England  on  the  sea,  and  Germany 
on  the  land?  Why  not  also  denounce  France  for  building 
mighty  fortresses,  that  look  towards  Germany  and  pro- 
gressively perfecting  and  increasing  her  military  prowess 
both  on  land  and  sea?  Why  not  vehemently  protest  against 
the  menace  to  the  World's  Peace,  kept  ever  near  the  danger 
line,  by  the  Czar's  cruel  Cossacks?  Does  it  not  seem  strange 
that  the  most  peaceful    and    peace-loving    nation    of  Europe 

9 


should  be  the  only  one  universally  selected  for  vitupera- 
tive attacks  by  pen  and  tongue?  All  that  Germany  has  ever 
asked  or  will  ever  ask  for  of  the  rest  of  the  world  is  Fair  Play 
and  to  be  left  in  Peace  and  Security. 

It  is  German  "efficiency,''  military  and  especially  commer- 
cial that  troubles  England.  There  is  more  "militarism"  about 
the  Lion  than  there  is  about  the  Imperial  Eagle.  When  it 
comes  to  "efficiency'"  the  case  is  reversed.  In  but  one  feature 
is  England  more  "efficient"  than  Germany  and  that  is  in  Diplo- 
macy— but  that  is  rather  "cleverness"  and  the  facility  to  juggle 
with  facts  than  the  real  diplomacy  that  wins  and  retains  the 
acquiescence  of  statesmen  and  the  respect  of  historians. 

Germany^s  Efficiency. 

Germany  begins  to  train  her  men  when  they  are  schoolboys. 
They  have  discipline  for  breakfast,  dinner  and  supper — ^and 
between  meals.  They  are  not  only  taught  to  obey,  but  they  are 
shown  why  they  should  respect  Power  as  represented  by  Age, 
Education  and  Skill.  Germany's  tremendous  commercial 
growth  is  the  logical  result  of  Efficiency — of  maximum  results 
from  minimum  efforts — of  the  composite  team  work  of  thor- 
oughly trained  men.  This  same  thorough  training  plus  the 
essential  specializing  that  fits  the  untrained  youth  for  further 
development,  produces  the  scholar,  the  statesman,  the  soldier. 
In  every  field  of  endeavor  the  German's  efficiency  is  the  charac- 
teristic that  commands  respect  and  secures  success.  Thorough- 
ness, Persistency  and  Efficiency  form  the  Teutonic  triad  that 
has  made  for  Germany  "a  place  in  the  sun." 

The  New  York  Evening  Post,  March  6th,  1915,  says  edi- 
torially : 

'^Nothing  can  he  more  wrong-headed  than  to  attribute 
German  efficiency  solely  to  the  perfection  of  machine 
methods.  What  the  anti-German  calls  a  machine,  the 
Kaiser^ s  people  call  order  and  discipline.  The  German 
citizen    ♦    ♦    ♦    feels  himself  as  free  in  living  up  to  the 

10 


law  as  the  American  citizen  feels  in  allowing  laws  to 
remain  a  dead  letter  because  justice  is  impartially  ad- 
ministered ♦  ♦  ♦.  We  have  built  up  a  faith  in  mere 
legal  machines,  while  Germany  has  perceived  that  the 
machine  of  the  state  must  have  men  behind  it  J' 

Germany^s  Enforced  Sblf-Defense. 

For  centuries  the  several  states  and  provinces  now,  but  not 
then,  welded  together  under  the  Imperial  Eagle,  were 
the  chosen  battlefields  of  the  nations  of  Europe.  These 
frequent  invasions  on  various  pretexts  not  only  devastated 
and  depopulated  the  German  country  but  her  territory  was 
reduced  since  each  victor  in  turn  appropriated  as  much  land  as 
he  wanted  or  could  secure.  In  self-defense  and  for  self -protec- 
tion a  standing  army  and  border  fortresses  were  among  the  first 
logical  military  developments,  followed  by  the  amalgamation 
of  the  states  now  comprising  the  German  Empire.  Without  her 
military  organization  the  integrity  of  the  Empire  could  not 
have  been  secured  or  maintained.  With  the  growth  and  per- 
fection of  her  military  forces,  Germany  not  only  defended  and 
protected  herself  but  for  many  years  she  was  able  to  maintain 
Peace.  War  means  Destruction.  Germany,  during  all  of  these 
44  peaceful  years  was  creating,  up-building  her  science,  art, 
music,  agriculture,  manufacturing  industries  and  export  trade, 
together  with  all  else  that  makes  for  comfort,  health  and  happi- 
ness in  life.  In  the  Arts  of  Peace  she  was  pre-eminent.  Her 
mighty  army  and  her  modern  navy  were  drilled  and  kept  up  to 
the  acme  of  efficiency  solely  to  protect  her  own  country  and 
interests  and  not  to  fight  her  neighbors  just  for  the  sake  of 
conquest. 

His  Excellency,  Dr.  Bernhard  Dernburg,  formerly  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  the  German  Colonies,  says :  "German  mili- 
tarism has  kept  the  peace  for  44  years.  While  Russia  went  to 
war  with  Turkey  and  China  and,  after  having  promoted  the 
Hague  Conference,  battled  with  Japan  and  'protected'  Persia, 

11 


conquering  territory  double  the  size  of  the  United  States  on  the 
might-is-right  principle;  while  England,  the  defender  of  the 
rights  of  the  small  states,  smashed  the  Boer  Kepublic,  took 
Egypt,  Cypress  and  South  Persia;  while  the  French  Republic 
conquered  the  Sudan,  Tunis,  Madagascar,  Indo-China  and  Mo- 
rocco ;  while  Italy  possessed  itself  of  Tripoli  and  the  islands  in 
the  Aegean  Sea;  while  Japan  fought  China,  took  Formosa, 
Corea  and  Southern  Manchuria  and  has  now,  with  the  aid  of 
her  allies,  invaded  China,  a  neutral  country;  there  is  not  one 
annexation  or  increase  of  territory  to  the  charge  of  Germany. 
She  has  waged  no  war  of  any  kind  and  has  never  acquired  a 
territory  in  all  her  existence  except  by  treaty  and  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  rest  of  the  world." 

Germany  A  Practical  Democracy. 

The  German  Empire  is  a  confederation  of  26  kingdoms, 
duchies,  states  and  free  cities.  These  26  units  still  have  their 
rulers,  courts,  legislative  bodies  and  local  governments.  The 
Empire,  as  the  central  government,  looks  after  their  foreign 
relations,  issues  their  money,  regulates  their  tariffs  and  per- 
forms other  duties  for  the  good  of  all.  As  a  matter  of  actual 
fact  the  German  Empire  could,  with  absolute  accuracy,  be 
called  the  United  States  of  Germany,  of  which  the  King  of 
Prussia  is  the  President,  or  as  he  is  officially  designated  in  Ger- 
many, the  "German  Kaiser."  Every  German  is  a  citizen  and  a 
subject  of  the  Kingdom  or  state  to  which  he  belongs.  No  Ger- 
man is  strictly  speaking  a  subject  of  the  German  Kaiser.  Wil- 
helm  II  has  less  actual  power  than  our  own  President. 

German  Army  Life. 

For  years  it  has  been  dinned  into  American  ears  that  the  en- 
forced military  service  was  not  only  an  intolerable  hardship  on 
Germany's  young  men  in  that  it  prevented  them  from  engaging 
in  more  lucrative  business  for  three  years,  but  that  it  also  un- 
fitted them  for  a  later  civilian  career.    Now  everyone  will  con- 

12 


cede  that  even  one  year  in  an  American  military  school  makes 
a  boy  manly.  He  is  taught  self-respect  by  being  put  on  his 
honor,  while  the  drill,  the  gymnasium  work  and  the  proper 
food  make  him  strong,  well  poised  and  healthy. 

Young  Germans  serve  two  years  in  the  infantry  or  three 
in  the  cavalry;  high-school  graduates  serve  only  one  year. 
The  young  German's  army  life  brings  out  all  of  the 
good  that  is  in  him.  Entering  the  army,  as  many  of  the 
recruits  do,  without  any  previous  physical  training  other 
than  that  associated  with  work  in  the  field  or  workshop,  the 
crude  recruit  is  first  taught  to  stand  and  walk  erectly.  With 
this  as  the  fundamental  essential  firmly  established  he  is  drilled 
with  and  without  his  gun  in  the  various  evolutions  that  eventu- 
ally transform  him  into  a  well-poised  soldier.  To  this  physical 
development  is  added  such  study  of  army  regulations  and  many 
other  things  besides  the  manual  of  arms,  as  will  in  the  course  of 
time  make  him  an  intelligent  man  and  soldier.  All  through  his 
whole  army  life  he  is  taught  to  respect  the  authority  of  his 
superiors,  is  taught  courtesy,  cleanliness  and  hygiene  and  that 
makes  him  a  gentleman  and  a  disciplined  soldier.  He  is  there- 
fore developed  physically,  mentally  and  morally. 

At  the  end  of  his  military  service  he  is  a  manly  man  and 
better  equipped  in  every  way  for  that  place  in  civilian  life  to 
which  he  aspires.  Far  from  being  "an  intolerable  hardship" 
it  is  a  liberal  education  for  every  German  boy,  rich  or  poor, 
high  or  low,  and  an  experience  that  makes  them  better  citizens 
and  better  Germans.  The  German  soldier  of  the  rank  and  file 
does  not  make  army  life  a  profession  as  the  active  officers  do. 
He  serves  his  allotted  time  in  the  army  and  then  returns  to  his 
private  life.  In  after  years  he  looks  back  on  his  army  life  as  a 
series  of  "red  letter  days." 

German  Military  Expenses. 

For  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  much  has  been  said  and 
more  written  about  "the  great  burden  of  expense  imposed  upon 

13 


the  German  people  for  the  upkeep  of  ^the  Prussian  sabre'  on 
land  and  sea."  According  to  the  most  extreme  anti-militarists 
Germany  is  kept  poor  by  supporting  her  army  and  navy. 
Strange  that  there  are  no  evidences  of  this  poverty !  If  anyone 
has  ever  travelled  through  a  more  prosperous,  happy  and  con- 
tented country  than  Germany  is,  I  never  heard  of  it.  German 
cities  have  no  slums  like  London;  neither  is  pauperism  a  pro- 
fession in  Germany.  The  daughter  of  a  New  York  druggist, 
who  accompanied  the  German- American  Apothecaries'  Union 
on  their  trip  to  Europe  last  summer,  received  from  her  German 
grandmother  a  dollar  with  this  kindly  advice :  "Give  it  to  the 
first  beggar  you  see  in  Germany."  The  young  lady  travelled 
through  Germany  for  six  weeks  and  upon  her  return  handed  the 
dollar  back  with  the  convincing  remark:  "Grandma,  there 
aren't  any." 

These  same  extremists  point  with  "pious  horror"  to 
Germany's  "intolerable  extravagance"  in  the  liberal  pension- 
ing not  only  of  the  widows  and  orphans  of  her  army  and  navy 
men  but  also  in  the  paternal  care  of  her  aged  poor  and  those 
incapacitated  by  accident  or  otherwise.  To  draw  a  paral- 
lel between  Germany's  liberality  to  her  unfortunates  and  Eng- 
land's parsimony  to  hers  would  but  add  weight  to  the  epigram 
"comparisons  are  odious."  Perhaps  the  following  figures  may 
throw  the  spot-light  on  some  rather  instructive  data,  not  par- 
ticularly pleasing  to  the  aforesaid  anti-militarist  statisticians : 

Expenditures  for  the  year  1913-14,  according  to  the  World 
Almanac  of  1914  (page  470)  : 

Great  Britain       Kussia  France  Germany 

Army.  |224,300,000  $317,800,000  $191,431,500  $183,090,000 
Navy.  $224,140,000  $122,500,000  $119,571,400  $111,300,000 
Total.  $448,440,000    $440,300,000     $311,002,900     $294,390,000 

Tax  on  each  inhabitant:  Great  Britain,  $9.97;  Russia, 
$2.75;  France,  $7.91;  Germany,  $4.54. 

These  figures  tell  the  tale.  The  upkeep  of  "the  Prussian 
sabre"  in  time  of  peace  costs  each  German  only  $4.54  as  com- 

14 


pared  to  the  Frenchman's  outlay  of  f7.91  and  the  English- 
man's tax  of  $9.97  for  the  support  of  their  respective  fighting 
forces.  Where  does  the  shoe  pinch  most — in  Germany,  France 
or  England?    Facts  are  stubborn  things! 

Reduced  Armament 

— so  much  discussed  during  recent  years — is  possible  for  Ger- 
many only  on  condition  that  England,  Russia  and  France  not 
only  obligate  themselves  to  do  likewise  but  play  fair  and  actu- 
ally reduce  their  armament  both  on  land  and  sea.  Were  these 
four  great  World  Powers  to  set  such  an  example,  it  would 
probably  become  general  and  all  other  nations  might  fall  into 
line  without  protest  or  delay.  It  is  as  Utopian  to  expect  univer- 
sal disarmament  as  it  is  unfair  and  unreasonable  to  expect  Ger- 
many, for  example,  to  reduce  her  army  and  navy  both  in  num- 
bers and  efficiency  and  the  Allies  to  maintain  their  present  fight- 
ing machines  on  land  and  sea.  From  the  viewpoint  of  London, 
Germany  should  be  perpetually  disarmed.  But  what  a  howl 
would  be  heard  from  Downing  Street  if  the  case  were  reversed 
and  the  same  demand  were  made  and  enforced  on  the  Union 
Jack! 

Premeditated  Preparedness. 

Ever  since  "To  Arms"  ushered  in  the  month  of  August,  1914, 
the  phrase  "Premeditated  Preparedness"  has  been  overworked 
by  both  English  and  American  editorial  writers.  Let  us  look 
some  established  facts  squarely  in  the  face  and  thus  get  a  clearer 
conception  of  the  meaning  of  that  phrase  as  it  applies  to  the 
several  nations  at  war. 

Russia  did  not  disband  her  Army  Corps  as  usual  after  the 
annual  Spring  manoeuvers  but  kept  them  on  a  war- footing; 
two  business  friends  of  mine  w^ho  were  in  Russia  in  March  and 
April,  1914,  reported  that  everywhere  in  Russia  the  pending  war 
against  Germany  was  discussed  openly  and  that  large  numbers 
of  troops  were  being  sent  westward  towards  the  German  border. 

15 


Was  not  that  at  least  a  premonitory  symptom  of  Premeditated 

Preparedness? 

J.  J.  Williams,  in  the  New  York  Sun,  September  2,  1914, 

writes — 

"Immediately  after  the  assassination  of  the  Austrian 
archduke,  Kussia  started  making  warlike  preparations. 
Middle  of  July  last,  the  most  important  Eussian  news- 
paper, the  Novoye  Vremya,  published  a  sensational  arti- 
cle to  the  effect  that  Russia  would  be  ready  to  completely 
crush  Germany  and  Austria  in  1916,  and  to  establish 
a  great  Slav  empire  in  Europe.     .     .     . 

"On  July  27  the  great  Russian  liberal  paper,  the 
Retch,  wrote  that,  if  a  great  European  War  should 
break  out,  the  cause  would  have  to  be  laid  at  the  doors 
of  the  Novoye  Vremya  for  their  warlike  article.  As 
the  Retch  continued  in  agitating  for  peace,  the  newspaper 
was  ordered  to  be  suspended  by  the  Russian  govern- 
ment. On  July  29  last  a  council  of  the  Russian  cabinet 
ministers  decided  for  war,  and  ordered  a  general  mobili- 
zation of  the  Russian  army  and  navy  (the  only  Russian 
minister  who  spoke  for  peace  in  this  council  was  the 
minister  of  agriculture.)  On  July  25  I  traveled  from 
Helsingfors  to  Reval,  where  I  saw  the  whole  Russian 
Baltic  fleet  assembled.  On  July  29  I  witnessed  hostile 
demonstrations  of  a  big  Russian  mob  before  shops  and 
hotels  owned  by  Germans  and  Austrians  in  Moscow.  On 
July  30  Germany  asked  Russia  to  stop  mobilizing  but 
Russia  declined  to  do  so.  On  August  1  a  squadron  of 
Russian  Cossacks  crossed  the  German  boundary  on  the 
River  Warthe.'' 
To  my  personal  knowledge,  hundreds  of  Russian  families 

suddenly  left  Germany  and  Switzerland  to  return  to  Russia, 

weeks  before  the  war  was  started.  Was  that  only  a  coincidence? 

The  four  children  of  the  Russian  General  Rennenkampf,  who 

16 


were  being  educated  in  Breslau,  were  ordered  home  early  in 
April.    Was  that  also  only  a  coincidence? 

England  "happened"  to  have  a  great  Naval  Review  of  prac- 
tically the  entire  British  Fleet  of  War  vessels — all  painted  in 
the  war  color — in  the  home  waters  less  than  a  month  before  war 
was  declared — "ready  for  action  and  disposed  according  to  the 
stragetical  plan  of  the  Admiralty" — ^and  not  only  was  this 
monster  marine  fighting  machine  not  disbanded  after  the  "Re- 
view" but  on  the  specious  plea  of  "for  emergency"  it  is  re- 
ported that  Lord  Churchill  had  contracted  for  £2,700,000  (|13,- 
500,000)  worth  of  provisions  and  ammunition  for  the  fleet 
without  consulting  his  Cabinet  colleagues  who,  it  is  credibly 
stated,  knew  nothing  of  the  matter  until  Churchill  asked  for  a 
voucher  authorizing  the  payment  of  the  bill.  In  this  respect 
Churchill  emulated  the  example  of  his  diplomatic  confrere.  Sir 
Edward  Grey,  although  be  it  said  in  a  less  disastrous  way,  for 
Churchill's  purchases  could  at  least  in  part  be  legitimately 
used  in  the  course  of  time,  while  Grey's  tactics  sent  Englishmen 
to  the  firing  line  in  France.  However  Churchill's  animus 
is  made  more  clear  by  the  fact  that  by  another  rather  peculiar 
coincidence  the  French  Fleet  was  ordered  to  go  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean, thus  leaving  the  French  coast  entirely  unprotected  by 
French  men-of-war.  Of  course  the  big  British  Fleet  was  strong 
enough  to  protect  both  the  English  and  French  coasts  and  the 
French  warships  "were  needed  in  the  Mediterranean."  Can 
this  be  meaningless  to  any  one  who  actually  thinks? 

It  is  said  to  be  a  matter  of  official  English  record  that  before 
war  was  declared  against  Germany  Lord  Churchill  laid  before 
his  colleagues  plans  for  blowing  up  the  German  Fleet  and  with- 
out making  a  declaration  of  war.  The  Churchill  propo- 
sition affords  additional  incriminating  evidence  against 
England  and  emphasizes  the  statement  that  England  was  both 
ready  and  eager  to  "paint  another  few  square  miles  of  the 
world's  map  red"  and  that  she  was  not  only  prepared  to  make 
war  on  Germany  but  that  she  actually  incited  the  attack. 

17 


The  German  Foreign  Office  is  said  to  have  proof  that  Eng- 
land was  treating  with  Russia,  months  before  the  war,  to  furnish 
transports  for  carrying  Russian  troops  to  the  German  (Pom- 
meranian)  coast,  but,  apparently,  the  arrangement  did  not 
lead  to  any  results. 

The  Paris  ^^Gil  Bias"  of  February  25,  1913,  printed  the 
following :  "A  paper  in  the  East  of  France  publishes  an  inter- 
esting news  item.  It  is  common  talk  in  military  circles  that 
for  weeks  past  large  supplies  of  British  munitions  of  war  have 
been  shipped  to  Maubeuge,  on  the  Northeastern  French  Fron- 
tier, via  the  Paris-Cologne  railway.  The  City  of  Maubeuge  is  of 
great  military  importance.  In  the  French  plan  of  campaign 
it  is  designated  as  the  point  of  concentration  of  the  allied  troops, 
who  are  to  be  commanded,  in  case  of  war,  by  the  English  Field 
Marshal,  Sir  John  French,  as  Commander-in-chief  under  Gen- 
eral Joffre.  It  is  well  known  that  the  projectiles  for  the  British 
guns  are  different  from  those  of  the  French.  However  the  two 
Governments  have  formed  an  arrangement  by  which  the  neces- 
sary supplies  for  the  English  artillery  may  be  landed  in  France 
in  time  of  peace." 

"Never  ready"  France  was  for  once  ready — only  waiting  for 
the  orders  of  her  Allies  of  the  Triple  Entente.  French  prisoners 
of  war  openly  assert  that  after  the  spring  manoeuvers  of  1914 
their  army  corps  were  not  disbanded  as  usual  but  were  supplied 
with  bullet  cartridges  and  sent  towards  the  German  and  Bel- 
gian frontiers.  Does  that  signify  nothing?  All  German  health 
resorts  are  freely  patronized  by  wealthy  Frenchmen  and  Rus- 
sians and,  naturally,  many  French  waiters  are  employed  at  the 
hotels  and  restaurants.  During  my  visit  in  Germany  last  sum- 
mer I  noticed  and  commented  upon  the  almost  complete  absence 
of  the  French  waiters.  "Called  back  to  France"  I  was  told. 
That  was  over  a  month  before  war  began.  Was  it  a  coinci- 
dence? 

To  my  personal  knowledge^  premeditated  preparedness  can- 
not he  charged  to  Germany.     I  spent  two  months  in  Germany 

18 


during  the  summer  of  1914.  It  was  the  same  hospitable,  happy, 
contented,  prosperous,  peaceful  country  I  have  known  for 
the  last  18  years  during  my  yearly  visits.  In  the  military  bu- 
reaus of  the  towns  where  I  spent  some  weeks,  the  officers  at- 
tached to  those  offices  were  either  on  furlough  or  were  mingling, 
in  civilian  clothes,  with  the  general  public.  In  my  social  inter- 
course with  them  nothing  was  said  which  would  indicate  that 
Germany  would  soon  be  drawn  into  war.  Having  served  in  the 
Army,  and  having  a  wide  acquaintance  among  military  men 
as  well  as  some  knowledge  of  German  military  affairs,  it  was 
my  impression,  in  fact  my  firm  conviction,  that  Germany  be- 
lieved that  Peace  would  continue  to  abide  with  her  and  that 
it  would  not  be  disturbed  even  by  the  Austro- Servian  episode, 
which  was,  at  that  time,  receiving  much  deserved  diplomatic 
attention.  Travelling  through  Germany,  I  saw  thousands  of 
soldiers  on  the  railroad  trains  and  stations;  they  were  not  on 
their  way  to  join  their  regiments,  but  on  their  way  to  spend 
their  vacation  with  their  families.  German  cavalry  officers, 
with  their  string  of  fleet-footed  horses  were  participating  in  the 
series  of  mid-summer  races  in  the  various  cities.  I  attended 
several  "Herren  Eeiter"  race  meetings.  Germany  was  at  peace ! 
And  to  my  personal  knowledge  this  was  the  state  of  affairs  until 
July  30th.  Does  that  look  as  though  the  Kaiser  premeditated 
war  or  does  it  look  as  though  he  felt  confident  that  he  could 
successfully  counsel  and  preserve  Peace,  as  he  had  done  so 
many  times  during  his  reign  of  26  years? 

In  the  light  of  these  established  facts  against  whom  would 
any  reasoning,  thinking  man  charge  "Premeditated  Prepared- 
ness"— Germany — or  England,  France  and  Russia? 

"To  THE  Day.^^ 

And  yet  in  spite  of  these  incontrovertible  facts  some  English- 
men persist  in  reiterating  that  for  years  the  favorite  toast  in 
German  military  circles  was  "To  the  Day,"  inferring  that  Ger- 

19 


many  was  not  only  "ready"  but  was  impatiently  awaiting  "the 
day"  when  she  would  have  a  plausible  excuse  to  go  to  war. 

Grand  Admiral  von  Tirpitz,  whose  standing  as  a  man  and  an 
officer  precludes  the  possibility  of  prevarication,  in  an  interview 
with  Ex-Senator  Albert  J.  Beveridge,  published  in  Collier's. 
March  27th,  1915,  declares  this  to  be  "an  infamous  lie."  He 
further  asserts  "I  say  on  my  honor  as  a  man  and  an  officer,  that 
I  never  heard  such  a  toast  proposed,  never  drank  such  a  toast, 
and  never  heard  of  such  a  toast  being  proposed  or  drunk. 
Every  honest  English  officer  will  tell  you  that  it  is  a  wretched 
lie."  Further  it  is  of  official  record  that  in  1909,  Prince  Henry 
of  Prussia,  the  Kaiser's  brother,  in  his  official  capacity  of  Gen- 
eral Inspector  of  the  Marine,  wired  to  Sir  Henry  Lunn,  a  well- 
known  member  of  the  British  Nobility,  that  the  statement  rela- 
tive to  the  "To  The  Day"  toast  was  AN  INFAMOUS  LIE. 

What  more  convincing  evidence  does  any  reasonable  man 

^  ^  *  The  Teiple  Entente. 

Looking  at  the  preliminaries  to  this  disastrous  war  from 
another  angle,  it  is  important  to  note  that  as  a  tangible  result 
of  the  Young  Turks'  revolt  in  1908  at  Constantinople,  the  Sultan 
was  forced  to  grant  a  new  constitution  according  to  which  both 
Bulgaria  and  Bosnia-Herzegovina  were  to  send  their  represen- 
tatives to  the  Turkish  Parliament;  but  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, 
preferring  Austrian  to  Turkish  control,  renounced  the  Sultan's 
nominal  suzerainty  in  October  of  that  year,  much  to  the  dis- 
gruntlement  of  Russia.  During  the  next  four  years  Austria- 
Hungary  gave  to  Bosnia-Herzegovina  a  local  constitution  to- 
gether with  representative  institutions,  while  Germany  made 
Alsace-Lorraine  a  State  of  the  Empire  and  admitted  her  repre- 
sentatives to  the  Reichstag.  Meanwhile  Russia  had  recovered 
from  her  Japanese  defeat,  France  had  perfected  her  military 
organization,  and  England's  jealousy  of  Germany's  rapid 
growth  as  a  great  commercial  factor,  became  still  more  acute. 
England,  thereupon,  joined  hands  with  Russia  and  France  and 

20 


the  "Triple  Entente"  was  born.  Theoretically  the  purpose  of  the 
Triple  Entente  was  "to  forever  preserve  the  i)eaceful  balance 
of  power."  Current  history  proves  that  its  real  reason  for 
existence  was  to  try  to  crush  the  two  great  Teutonic  Powers — 
Germany  and  Austria-Hungary,  who,  with  Italy  had  formed, 
many  years  earlier,  the  "Triple  Alliance"  for  mutual  defense. 
Perhaps  a  more  illuminating  title  for  the  new  Anglo-Franco- 
Russian  offensive  Alliance  would  have  been  the  "Triple  Con- 
spiracy." Eacially,  culturally  and  regally — for  her  reigning 
family  comes  from  Teutonic  stock — England's  logical  Alliance 
would  have  been  with  Germany.  But  it  has  been  well  said  that 
"Politics  makes  strange  bedfellows." 

HiLAIBB  BELLO<ys  ViBWS. 

To  quote  that  eminent  English  historian,  Hilaire  Belloc, 
"England  came  to  an  arrangement  with  France  whereby  she 
should  have  a  free  hand  in  Egypt  and  France  should  be  sup- 
ported by  England  in  the  occupation  of  Morocco.  *  *  ♦  to 
the  manifest  loss  of  Germany's  colonial  ambition.  She  gave  all 
that  is  vital  to  Russian  control.  She  forgot  her  old  anxiety 
about  the  Indian  frontier;  she  lost  her  old  and  hitherto  un- 
broken policy  of  supporting  Turkey  in  Europe.  When  the  war 
came,  she  was  with  the  French  in  supporting  the  Balkan  pow- 
ers, The  Little  Nations.'  " 

The  Skevian  Climax. 

But  let  us  come  still  nearer  to  the  Prologue  to  Act  I  of  this 
terrible  Tragedy,  to  be  presented  in  the  Theatre  of  War.  Servia 
is  the  Mexico  of  Europe, — the  hot-bed  of  revolutions,  assassina- 
tions and  intrigue.  It  must  be  remembered  that  Servia  for 
many  years  so  persistently  stirred  up  international  animosity 
and  on  a  number  of  occasions  so  nearly  succeeded  in  precipitat- 
ing a  European  war  that  all  the  Great  Powers  lost  patience  with 
her.  England  went  so  far  at  one  time  as  to  refuse  to  send  a 
diplomatic  representative  to  the  Servian  Court. 

21 


Servia  had  defeated  the  Turks.  With  Russia's  connivance 
and  guidance  she  planned  for  a  new  Slavic  Empire  which  should 
border  the  sea  and  include  all  of  Austria's  Slavic  possessions, 
— an  immense  forward  stride  for  Russia's  Pan- Slavic  program. 
If  consummated  it  meant  Austria's  disruption  and  the  crumb- 
ling of  Austria's  power. 

In  the  midst  of  this  Slavic  scheming  and  as  a  hurried  climax 
to  the  underhanded  plot  against  the  integrity  of  the  Austrian 
Empire  came  the  world-startling  murder  of  Austria's  Heir- 
Apparent,  the  Archduke  Ferdinand  and  his  wife  at  Sarajevo 
on  June  28th,  1914.  The  Sarajevo  murder  was  but  one  of  an 
unending  series  of  efforts  to  embroil  Europe  in  war.  Persis- 
tent investigations  proved  beyond  question  that  the  murder- 
plot  was  planned  by  high  Servian  officials  at  Belgrade  and 
it  is  claimed,  with  the  knowledge  of  Russia.  This  was  not  the 
act  of  a  fanatic  or  a  madman  but  only  one  of  a  series  of  four 
carefully,  simultaneously  laid  plots  all  with  the  avowed  purpose 
of  assassinating  Ferdinand.  Austria  made  several  unsuccess- 
ful attempts  to  induce  Servia  to  agree  to  an  immediate  official 
investigation,  but  Servia  diplomatically  temporized  at  the  re- 
quest of  Russia.  Austria  had  not  forgotten  that  Servia 
killed  her  own  King  and  Queen  in  cold  blood  and  that  the  mur- 
derers were  never  punished.  Neither  had  she  forgotten  that 
during  the  reign  of  the  murdered  King  Alexander,  the  present 
Servian  King  lived  in  Switzerland  at  the  expense  of  Russia 
and  that  his  hurried  assumption  of  Servia's  crown  was  at  the 
command  of  Russia — not  at  the  authoritative  call  of  the  Servian 
people  or  officials. 

Knowing  that  the  Servians,  having  refused  to  punish  the 
murderers  of  their  own  King,  could  not  be  expected  to  punish 
either  the  murderers  of  Ferdinand  or  those  who  instigated  the 
vile  plot,  Austria  demanded  representation  on  the  proposed  jury 
of  investigation  but  this  Servia's  "honor"  could  not  and  would 
not  tolerate.  Austria's  demand  was  justified  and  not  without 
precedent.     Did  we  not  demand  the  same  privilege  in  the  Ben- 

22 


ton  case  in  Mexico?  It  must  be  evident  to  every  fair-minded 
person  that  this  was  not  a  subject  for  arbitration.  A  foul  mur- 
der had  been  committed.  It  was  a  case  that  deserved  investi- 
gation, that  called  for  reparation,  that  demanded  the  punish- 
ment of  the  guilty.  As  Servia,  backed  by  Russia,  refused  Aus- 
tria's just  demands  there  was  but  one  other  course  for  Austria 

to  take.  AusTRiA^s  Only  Alternative. 

Therefore,  Austria  under  great  provocation  and  in  self- 
protection,  adopted  the  only  other  alternative.  But  before 
starting  her  expedition  to  Servia,  Austria  informed  that  coun- 
try that  her  only  purpose  was  to  properly  avenge  the  death  of 
Ferdinand  by  punishing  all  of  those  connected  with  the  das- 
tardly crime  and  at  the  same  time  Austria  guaranteed  to  all  the 
European  Powers,  that  that  was  and  would  be  the  extreme 
limit  of  her  proposed  punitive  expedition.  All  the  European 
Powers,  save  Russia,  apparently  agreed  to  let  Austria  and 
Servia  settle  their  own  family  quarrel  in  their  own  way  and 
without  interference  on  their  part.  Russia  alone  objected. 
The  Russian  minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Sazanof  said :  "Rus- 
sia could  not  possibly  permit  the  Servian- Austrian  dispute  to  be 
confined  to  the  parties  concerned." 

The  Kaiser  in  Norway. 
It  is  an  incontrovertible  fact  that  during  the  crisis  following 
the  assassination  of  Ferdinand,  the  Kaiser  was  on  his  annual 
outing  in  Norway  and  did  not  return  to  Germany  until  a  few 
days  before  war  was  declared.  He  was  confident  that  the  Ser- 
vian episode  could  and  would  be  definitely  disposed  of  by  the 
two  countries  most  vitally  concerned.  His  absence  from  Ger- 
many at  that  time  is  another  indisputable  proof  that  Germany 
had  no  idea  of  going  to  war,  as  has  been  so  often  claimed. 

The  Kaiser  Mediates. 
At  the  Czar's  request  the  Kaiser,  upon  his  return  to  Berlin 
from  Norway,  began  to  mediate  between  Austria  and  Servia, 

23 


for  Eussia  at  once  made  Servians  cause  her  own.  And 
with  that  "Cossack  duplicity,"  w^hich  is  infamously  historic, 
even  while  he  apparently  welcomed  the  Kaiser^s  Peace  over- 
tures, the  Czar,  bountifully  supplied  with  French  capital, 
began  to  perfect  the  mobilization  of  his  troops  against  both 
Germany  and  Austria.  The  long-dreaded  ultimate  crisis  of 
Slav  against  Teuton  had  arrived.  The  Kaiser  made  four  ap- 
peals to  the  Czar  to  stop  mobilization  and  not  to  move  his 
troops  towards  and  across  the  frontier,  but  the  Czar  kept  on 
mobilizing.  The  Kaiser  also  offered  to  urge  Austria  to  begin 
new  negotiations  with  Servia — Servia  being  then  on  the  point 
of  yielding — with  the  avowed  purpose  of  preserving  peace  by 
preventing  war.  The  last  message  of  the  Kaiser  to  the  Czar, 
when  read  in  connection  with  those  that  immediately  preceded 
it,  clearly  proves  that  this  is  not  the  Kaiser's  war.  It  also,  with 
equal  directness  of  convincing  evidence  places  the  initial  blame 
where  it  belongs — on  the  Czar.  In  his  final  appeal  to  the  Czar 
the  Kaiser  said:  "My  efforts  to  maintain  the  Peace  of  the 
world  have  reached  their  limit.  It  will  not  be  I  who  am  re- 
sponsible for  the  calamity  which  threatens  the  whole  world. 
Even  at  this  moment  it  lies  in  thy  power  to  prevent  it.  Nobody 
threatens  the  honor  and  power  of  Eussia,  which  could  well  have 
waited  for  the  result  of  my  mediation.  .  .  .  The  Peace  of 
Europe  can  still  be  maintained  by  thee,  if  Eussia  decides  to 
cease  her  military  measures  which  threaten  Germany  and 
Austria-Hungary." 

Eussia  Began  the  Wae. 

It  must  be  remembered  that,  while  the  Kaiser's  personal 
efforts  to  preserve  Peace  were  going  on,  Eussian  troops  had 
already  crossed  the  German  frontier  and  marched  into  German 
territory  (August  1st.)     Thus  Eussia  began  the  war  against 

ermany.  Germany^s  Ultimatum. 

It  must  also  be  remembered  that  Germany,  being  aware  of 
the  military  activities  of  France  and  the  massing  of  her  troops 

24 


along  the  German  and  Belgian  frontiers,  instructed  her  ambas- 
sadors at  Paris  and  at  St.  Petersburg  to  notify  the  French  and 
Russian  governments  that,  unless  their  military  measures  would 
be  discontinued  within  12  hours,  Germany  would  mobilize  her 
army.  At  the  same  time  the  German  Ambassador  at  Paris  was 
instructed  to  demand  from  the  French  Government  a  declaration 
within  18  hours,  whether  France  would  remain  neutral  in  a 
Russo-German  war.  France  replied  she  would  do  that  which 
her  interests  demanded.  A  few  hours  later,  August  1st,  5  P.  M., 
the  mobilization  of  the  entire  French  Army  and  Navy  was 
ordered  and  on  the  following  morning  France  opened  hostilities. 
Russia's  answer  never  reached  Germany. 

England^s  Insincere  Negotiations. 

In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  call  attention  to  an  official 
letter  written  by  the  Belgian  Minister  at  St.  Petersburg  to  the 
Belgian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  at  Brussels  on  July  30th, 
1914,  and  sent  by  courier  to  Berlin  and  there  mailed  to  a  private 
address  in  Brussels.  This  letter  never  reached  its  destination, 
owing  to  the  interruption  of  mails  when  war  was  declared,  and 
it  was  later  on  opened  at  the  Berlin  Dead-letter  Office,  so  as  to 
return  it  to  the  writer.  This  official  letter,  sent  in  an  unofficial 
envelope,  clearly  establishes  the  elsewhere  proven  fact  that  Eng- 
land's negotiations  with  Germany  were  absolutely  insincere 
and  intended  not  only  to  give  France  and  Russia  more  time  for 
preparation  but  also  to  create  the  impression  in  America  as 
well  as  elsewhere  in  the  world,  that  England  was  honestly  try- 
ing to  preserve  European  Peace.  It,  with  equal  clearness, 
establishes  the  duplicity  of  the  Czar  and  emphatically,  though 
unknowingly,  confirms  the  German  contention,  elsewhere  al- 
luded to  in  detail,  that,  while  the  Czar  apparently  encouraged 
the  Kaiser  to  plan  for  Peace,  he  secretly  perfected  mobilization. 
The  Belgian  Minister  to  St.  Petersburg  assured  his  Brussels 
confrere:  "It  is,  however,  unquestionably  true  that  Germany 
has  tried  hard  here  as  well  as  in  Vienna  to  find  some  way  of 

25 


preventing  a  general  conflict.  England  originally  let  it  be 
known  that  she  was  not  to  be  dragged  into  the  conflict  but  today 
St.  Petersburg  has  positive  assurance  that  England  will  sup- 
port France." 

It  is  indeed  the  irony  of  fate  that  it  fell  to  the  lot  of  a 
Belgian  Minister  to  expose  the  hollowness  of  England's  virtuous 
indignation  at  the  violation  of  Belgium's  neutrality  and  show 
the  flimsiness  of  her  casus  belli. 

England^'s  Real  Casus  Belli. 
To  prove  the  verity  of  my  contention  that  England's  insen- 
sate jealousy  of  Germany's  commercial  success  was  a  more 
potent  casus  belli  than  her  righteous  indignation  at  the  so- 
called  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality  it  is  noteworthy  that  her 
first  act  after  war  was  declared  was  to  try  to  capture  or  sink 
merchant  ships  flying  the  German  flag  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
regardless  of  the  fact  that  she  thus  temporarily  paralyzed  the 
world's  commerce.  In  the  Hamburg  harbor  alone,  the  port 
least  of  all  loved  by  Englishmen  ever  since  through  German 
enterprise  Hamburg  had  wrested  from  London  and  Liverpool 
the  proud  distinction  of  being  the  greatest  world-port — about 
1200  idle  merchant  ships  rode  at  anchor  afraid  to  go  to  sea 
for  fear  of  capture.  Our  own  New  York  harbor  gave  haven  to 
a  mighty  fleet  of  ocean  fliers  and  freighters.  Not  only  did 
England  thus  throttle  Germany  but  both  England  and  France 
vigorously  protested  against  the  proposed  purchase  by  Amer- 
icans of  certain  German  vessels  berthed  in  our  New  York  harbor. 
The  fact  that  these  vessels  belonged  to  the  two  German  lines 
that  carry  about  two-thirds  of  the  ocean  passenger  traffic  of  the 
world  did  not  lessen  England's  objection  to  their  sailing  under 
the  Stars  and  Stripes.  England  is  determined  to  be  the  real 
mistress  of  the  sea.  She  aims  to  be  not  only  Neptune's  naval 
spouse  but  also  his  commercial  consort.  She  is  just  as  unwill- 
ing to  allow  Germany  to  surpass  her  in  the  export  world  as  she 
is  to  allow  "Uncle  Sam"  to  buy  a  ready-made  merchant  marine 
and  thus  become  at  once  an  oceanic  competitor. 

26 


The  Violation  of  Bblgium^s  Neutrality 

has  been  played  tip  in  the  headlines  of  the  Anglo-American 
press  as  England^s  overwhelming  casus  belli.  But  let  us  test 
Britain's  logic  in  the  white-light  of  historic  fact  presented  by 
Professor  Emeritus  John  W.  Burgess,  of  the  Department  of 
Political  Science  and  Constitutional  Law  of  Columbia  Univer- 
sity, N.  Y.,  in  the  "Vital  Issue"  of  October  4th,  1914.  Prof. 
Burgess  says : 

"So  much  has  been  said  about  'Belgian  Neutrality,' 
so  much  assumed,  and  it  has  been  spoken  of  as  such  a 
sacred  thing,  that  it  may  be  well  to  examine  the  basis 
of  it  and  get  an  exact  idea  of  its  scope.  It  is  not  a  moral 
question.  It  is  a  question  of  truth.  It  is  a  question 
purely  of  international  agreement  and  we  must  find  for 
it  such  an  agreement  and  the  agreement  must  not  have 
been  abrogated  nor  have  become,  by  change  of  conditions, 
obsolete.  Of  course,  by  the  term  'Belgian  Neutrality' 
is  meant  guaranteed  neutrality,  not  simply  the  'general 
neutrality  of  all  states  not  at  war,'  at  a  time  when  other 
states  are  at  war. 

"On  the  19th  day  of  April,  1839,  Belgium  and  Hol- 
land which  had  from  1815  to  1830  formed  the  United 
Kingdom  of  the  Netherlands,  signed  a  treaty  of  separa- 
tion from,  and  independence  of,  each  other.  It  is  in  this 
treaty  that  the  original  pledge  of  Belgian  neutrality  is  to 
be  found.  The  clause  in  the  treaty  reads:  'Belgium  in 
the  limits  above  described  shall  form  an  independent 
neutral  state  and  shall  be  bound  to  observe  the  same 
neutrality  towards  all  other  states.'  On  the  same  day 
and  at  the  same  place,  London,  a  treaty,  known  in  the 
history  of  diplomacy  as  the  'Quintuple  Treaty,'  was 
signed  by  Great  Britain,  France,  Prussia,  Austria  and 
Russia,  approving  and  adopting  the  treaty  between  Bel- 
gium and  Holland.     A  little  later,  May  11th,  the  German 

27 


Confederation,  of  which  both  Prussia  and  Austria  were 
states,  also  ratified  this  treaty. 

"In  the  year  1866  the  German  Confederation  was  dis- 
solved by  the  short  war  between  Prussia  and  Austria. 
In  1867  the  ^North  German  Union'  was  formed,  of  which 
Prussia  was  the  largest  state. 

"Did  these  changes  abrogate  the  guarantee  of  the 
Treaty  of  1839,  or  make  it  obsolete?  The  test  of  this 
came  in  the  year  1870,  at  the  beginning  of  hostilities 
between  France  and  the  North  German  Union.  Great 
Britain,  the  power  most  interested  in  the  maintenance 
of  Belgian  neutrality,  seems  to  have  had  considerable 
apprehension  about  it.  Mr.  Gladstone,  then  Prime  Min- 
ister, said  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  2d  of  August, 
1870:  ^I  am  not  able  to  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  of 
those  who  have  held  in  this  House  what  plainly  amounts 
to  an  assertion  that  the  simple  fact  of  the  existence  of 
a  guarantee  is  binding  on  every  party  to  it,  irrespective 
altogether  of  the  particular  position  in  which  it  may  find 
itself  at  the  time  when  the  occasion  for  acting  on  the 
guarantee  arises.' 

"Acting  on  this  view,  the  British  government  then 
sought  and  procured  from  the  French  government,  and 
from  the  government  of  the  North  German  Union  sepa- 
rate but  identical  treaties,  ratified  on  the  9th  and  26th 
of  August,  1870,  respectively,  guaranteeing  the  neutral- 
ity of  Belgium  during  the  period  of  the  war  between 
France  and  the  North  German  Union  (the  so-called 
Franco-Prussian  war),  which  had  just  broken  out,  and 
for  one  year  from  the  date  of  its  close.  In  these  treaties 
Great  Britain  limited  the  possible  operation  of  her  mili- 
tary forces  in  maintaining  the  neutrality  of  Belgium  to 
the  territory  of  the  state  of  Belgium. 

"These  treaties  expired  in  the  year  1872,  and  the  pres- 
ent German  Empire  has  never  signed  any  treaty  guar- 

28 


anteeing  the  neutrality  of  Belgium.  If  the  Treaty  of 
1839  had  become  so  unreliable  in  1870  as  to  require,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  British  government,  the  new  treaties 
in  1870  in  order  to  make  sure  of  the  guarantee  of  Belgian 
neutrality,  what  shall  we  say  about  it  in  1914,  42  years 
after  these  treaties  of  1870  have  expired,  and  after  the 
North  German  Union,  which  was  party  to  them,  has  given 
way  to  the  present  German  Empire? 

"Finally,  The  Hague  Conference  of  1907  drafted  a 
convention  which  reads: 

"  'The  territory  of  neutral  powers  is  inviolable.  Bel- 
ligerents are  forbidden  to  move  troops  or  convoys  of 
either  munitions  of  war  or  supplies  across  the  territory 
of  a  neutral  power.' 

"Great  Britain,  Germany,  Austro-Hungary  and  Italy 
refused  to  sign  it  and  did  not  sign  it.  Russia  was  not 
represented. 

"Perhaps  we  may  now  somewhat  more  clearly  under- 
stand why  the  German  Chancellor  referred  to  the  guaran- 
tee of  Belgian  neutrality  as  a  'scrap  of  paper.'  At  any 
rate,  these  facts,  taken  together  with  the  facts  that  Great 
Britain  refused  to  pledge  her  own  neutrality  in  the  pres- 
ent war  even  on  the  condition  that  Germany  would  agree 
not  to  move  her  troops  through  Belgium  and  not  to  attack 
the  north  coast  of  France,  and  declined  to  formulate  any 
conditions  upon  which  she  would  remain  neutral,  clearly 
reduce  England's  much  vaunted  altruistic  reason  for  en- 
tering upon  this  war  to  a  diplomatic  subterfuge." 

No  Sane  Person 

— says  Harry  Carr  in  the  "Los  Angeles  Sunday  Times" — "No 
sane  person  believes  that  England  entered  this  war  out  of  a 
chivalric  determination  to  protect  Belgium.  England  viewed 
with  Christian  forbearance  the  violation  of  Luxemburg's 
neutrality;  she  herself  violated  the  neutrality  of  Chili  with  a 

29 


light  heart."  Mr.  Carr  here  refers  to  the  "Dresden  incident"  for 
which  England  now  acknowledges  her  culpability,  although 
at  first,  as  usual,  she  vehemently  declared  that  she  was  within 
"her  rights"  in  her  attack  on  the  virtually  interned  Dresden, 
and  has  now  offered  to  Chili,  what  England  officially  declares 
is  "a  full  and  ample  apology." 

England  Will  Blame  Grey. 

In  the  last  analysis  all  England  will  justly  blame  Sir 
Edward  Grey  not  only  for  her  participation  in  this  war  on  the 
flimsy  pretext  of  the  violation  of  Belgium's  neutrality  but  more 
bitterly  because  he  neither  accepted  nor  reported  to  the  Cabinet 
the  last  offer  made  by  Germany.  Not  only  did  Grey  reject  Ger- 
many's bona-fide  offer  to  absolutely  respect  Belgium's  neutral- 
ity and  to  guarantee  the  integrity  of  France,  if  England  would 
guarantee  her  own  neutrality  and  also  try  to  persuade  the  Czar 
not  to  interfere  with  Austria  and  Servia  in  the  localized  settle- 
ment of  their  own  troubles,  but  he  refused  even  to  discuss  with 
the  German  Ambassador  Germany's  request  that  Sir  Edward 
Grey  propose  his  own  conditions,  that  would  secure  England's 
neutrality.  To  make  matters  still  worse  and  prove  conclusively 
that  Grey  was,  in  this  instance,  acting  on  his  own  initiative, 
he  did  not  report  this  most  important  of  all  diplomatic  confer- 
ences to  his  official  colleagues,  nor  did  he  refer  to  it  in  his 
speech  before  Parliament.  Had  Grey  then  been  true  to  his 
King  and  his  country,  and  had  he  not  previously  committed 
England,  in  the  event  of  war,  to  support  Russia  and  France, 
and  had  he  met  Germany's  peaceful  overtures  and  co-operated 
with  the  Kaiser,  who  up  to  the  last  minute  of  the  eleventh  hour, 
worked  earnestly  and  unceasingly  for  Peace,  this  great  war 
might,  and  prol  ably  would  have  been  prevented  and  in  the 
meanwhile  the  Austro-Servian  imbroglio  would  have  been  set- 
tled. But  evidently  Grey,  imbued  with  the  "crush-Germany" 
idea,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  pacific  methods  of  diplomacy,  threw 
down  the  gauntlet  and — England  went  to  War. 

30 


Two  days  before  England  declared  war  on  Germany  (I 
refer  to  an  article  of  F.  Hugh  O'Donnell,  a  former  member  of 
Parliament,  in  the  "New  Witness"),  the  Asquith  cabinet 
ordered  the  British  Fleet  to  attack  Germany  in  defense  of 
France  and  in  furtherance  of  the  French  naval  action  in  the 
Mediterranean  against  Austria  and  if  necessary  against  Italy. 
Yet  England  was  then  and  for  two  days  more,  officially  at  peace 
with  Germany.  On  August  1st  the  British  Ambassador  at 
Paris  informed  England  that  France  had  ordered  a  general 
mobilization.  On  August  2d  the  British  Ambassador  at  Berlin 
informed  his  government  that  "Germany  and  Russia  are  now  in 
a  state  of  war." 

England  at  once  joined  France  against  Germany  and  as- 
sured France  on  August  2d  that  she  would  strike  at  Germany 
the  instant  a  German  Fleet  came  "into  the  Channel  or  through 
the  North  Sea  to  undertake  hostile  operations  against  French 
coasts  or  shipping."  Not  a  word  about  Belgium.  That  came 
two  days  later.  England  thus  officially  went  on  record  by  an 
act  of  war  two  days  before  she  actually  declared  war  against 
Germany,  and  at  least  one  day  before  German  troops  reached 
the  Belgian  frontier.  Does  not  this  irrefutable  evidence  prove 
that  England's  indignation  at  the  "violation  of  Belgian  neu- 
trality" was — to  quote  Prof.  Burgess — "a  diplomatic  subter- 


fuge"? 


'fe 


Belgium^s  Friendship  for  France. 


Belgium  has  been  very  partial  to  France  for  years.  Her 
best  people  speak  French  in  preference  to  Flemish.  Brussels 
prides  herself  on  being  "Little  Paris."  French  money  is  gladly 
accepted  everywhere  in  Belgium. 

French  Reciprocity. 

It  is  a  conceded  fact  that  French  army  officers  organized  and 
drilled  the  Belgian  army  and  not  only  planned  and  supervised 
the  construction  and  equipment  of  her  system  of  fortifications, 
but  also  were  practically  in  command  of  her  garrisons.    It  is 

31 


also  said  to  be  a  fact  that  French  troops  in  Belgian  uniforms 
were  in  Belgium  long  before  Germany  asked  permission  to  pass 
through  on  her  way  to  France.  French  prisoners  of  war  make 
the  statement  that  regiment  No.  45  was  stationed  at  Namur  in 
Belgium  and  that  French  troops  were  also  at  Liege  on  July 
30th — two  days  before  Germany  mobilized  her  army.  It  is 
equally  well  established  that  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  pres- 
ent conflict  and  before  Germany  passed  the  Belgian  border, 
Belgium  without  protest,  permitted  French  aviators  to  cross 
her  kingdom  so  as  to  drop  bombs  into  Cologne  and  Nuremberg. 

King  Albert's  Scheme. 
It  was  known  in  Germany  that  King  Albert  of  Belgium, 
acting  for  the  Triple  Entente,  early  in  1914  endeavored  to  unite 
the  neutral  countries  of  Europe  (those  not  members  of  the 
Triple  Entente  or  the  Triple  Alliance)  for  the  purpose  of  com- 
pletely isolating  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary.  Holland's 
suspicions  being  aroused,  the  plan  was  not  carried  out.  When 
at  the  end  of  July  the  general  situation  grew  threatening,  the 
Belgian  Ministers  became  greatly  alarmed.  Unknown  to  them. 
King  Albert,  at  the  suggestion  of  Lord  Curzon,  sent  a  despatch 
to  King  George  of  England,  asking  him  to  protect  Belgium's 

neu  ra  i  y.    q.ej^j^^p^ty^s  Friendship  for  Belgium. 

And  yet  in  1866,  during  the  Bismarck  regime  France 
repeatedly  sought  his  collusion  and  co-operation  either  for  the 
entire  acquisition  of  Belgium  or  her  partition,  but  the  Iron 
Chancellor  sternly  refused  to  be  a  party  to  the  scheme  and 
instead  exposed  France  to  the  universal  condemnation  of  the 
rest  of  Europe.  Thus  Germany  protected  Belgium  against 
French  territorial  expansion !  That  Belgium  conveniently  for- 
got Germany's  good  offices  through  Bismarck  was  shown  when 
in  her  great  strategic  emergency  Germany  pleaded  with  Bel- 
gium for  a  peaceful  right  of  way  through  her  country  and  guar- 
anteed to  pay  in  full  for  all  damages  caused  by  the  passage 
of  her  army,  and  also  guaranteed  Belgium's  integrity. 

32 


All  Europe  Knew. 

For  years  all  Europe,  including  Belgium,  knew  that  in  the 
event  of  a  war  between  Germany  on  one  side  and  France  and 
Russia  on  the  other,  the  only  feasible  plan,  in  view  of  the  strong 
cordon  of  French  frontier  fortifications,  was  for  Germany  to 
first  attack  France  through  Belgium  and  then  hurry  east  to 
meet  Russia.  Indeed  Gladstone  clearly  stated  to  the  House 
of  Commons  in  1870  that  in  the  event  of  such  a  conflict  Bel- 
gium's formal  neutrality  might  be  technically  violated. 

All  Europe  also  knew  that  if  France  ever  attacked  Ger- 
many she  would  have  found  the  Neubreisach-Strassburg-Metz 
fortifications  exceedingly  difiBcult  to  overcome  on  a  direct 
march  from  her  own  frontier  fortresses  and  that  a  flank  move- 
ment through  Belgium  was  inevitable.  England,  too,  officially 
recognized  the  Belgian  route  as  the  most  feasible  for  her  to  take 
in  the  event  of  an  Anglo-Teutonic  war.  Even  Belgium  herself 
recognized  the  fact  that  she  was  Europe's  natural  battle  ground 
but  while  she  strongly  fortified  her  Liege  and  Namur  against 
Germany  her  frontier  facing  France  was  unfortified. 

Who  Is  To  Blame.? 

Note  the  sequence  of  the  following  authenticated  facts  in 
determining  who  took  the  direful  initiative. 

August  1st — Russian  troops  crossed  the  Grerman  fron- 
tier at  Eichenried,  Miloslaw,  Schwidden  and  Johannis- 
burg. 

France  and  Germany  mobilize  their  armies. 

August  2nd — Germany  declares  war  against  Russia. 
French  troops  cross  Alsatian  frontier  into  Germany 
at  Mtinster,  Markirch,  Diedolshausen  and  Saales. 
German  Ambassador  at  Brussels  reports  massing  of 
French  troops  along  the  Maas-Givet-Namur  line — evi- 
dently for  the  purpose  of  entering  Germany  via  Belgium. 
England  orders  her  Fleet  to  attack  Germany. 

33 


Germany  asks  permission  to  march  her  troops  through 
Belgium. 

August  3rd — Germany  declares  war  against  France. 

Germany  invades  Belgium  to  reach  French  territory. 

August  4th — England  declares  war  against  Germany. 

And  that  was  the  sombre  stage-setting  for  Act 
First  of  this  terrible  tragedy — ^^ Europe  Bled  White, '^ 

Germany^s  Last  Resort. 

All  fair-minded  men  should  conclude  that  Germany,  realizing 
her  dangerous  position,  beset  on  all  sides  by  enemies  deter- 
mined upon  her  destruction,  was  compelled  to  adopt  the  only 
feasible  plan  and  strike  at  France  through  Belgium,  so  as  to 
more  quickly  and  effectively  defend  herself  against  the  pur- 
posed attack  of  France.  It  was  Germany's  only  possible  course 
then,  because  delay  in  reaching  French  territory  in  that 
crisis  spelled  probable  defeat  and  eventual  national  annihila- 
tion. Further  from  America's  own  ideas  of  international  law 
Germany  was,  under  the  circumstances,  justified  in  disregard- 
ing the  claimed  neutrality  of  Belgium. 

U.  S.  Supreme  Court  Ruling. 

Arthur  von  Briesen  points  out  that  in  the  Chinese  Exclusion 
cases  our  own  Supreme  Court  ruled  "that  circumstances  may 
arise  which  would  not  only  justify  the  government  in  disregard- 
ing their  stipulations,  but  demand  in  the  interests  of  the  country 
that  it  should  do  so,  there  can  be  no  question.  Unexpected 
events  may  call  for  a  change  in  the  policy  of  the  country." 

England's  position  in  1870  with  regard  to  Belgian  neutrality 
as  pointed  out  by  Prof.  Burgess  shows  that  she  too  reserved 
the  right  to  act  as  "her  interests"  required. 

If  both  England  and  America  claim  the  right  to  act  as  their 
interests  demand,  on  what  ground  can  either  of  them  object 
to  Germany's  exercise  of  the  same  prerogative? 

34 


Germany  Justified. 

In  speaking  to  a  high  official,  I  expressed  my  regret  that 
circumstances  beyond  her  control  and  conditions  not  of  her 
making  forced  Germany  to  violate  Belgium's  nominal  neutral- 
ity. I  realized  that  Americans,  not  knowing  the  inside  facts, 
would  severely  criticize  Germany  and  many  would  never  for- 
give her  for  it.  My  friend,  the  official,  replied  that  "irrespec- 
tive of  the  necessity  from  the  military  standpoint  there  are 
still  more  powerful  reasons  why  Germany  crossed  the  Belgian 
frontier  and  they  will  come  to  light  in  due  course  of  time. 
These  facts  when  made  public  will  convince  all  fair  minded 
men  that  Germany's  action  was  even  more  than  justified."  Ever 
since  that  conversation,  knowing  well  that  many  Americans, 
although  perhaps  convinced  that  Germany  was  forced  to  go 
to  war,  were  against  Germany  because  by  her  so-called  "viola- 
tion" many  Belgian  lives  were  lost  and  much  property  was  de- 
stroyed, I  have  been  watching  for  the  appearance  of  the  power- 
ful "reasons  why"  mentioned  by  my  official  friend.  They  have 
now  come  to  light.  They  prove  that  Belgium  is  more  than 
guilty  and  England's  action  in  declaring  war  on  Germany  in 
view  of  these  authentic  facts  is  simply  monstrous  infamy. 

Belgian  Strategical  Points. 

To  prove  that  both  England  and  France  foresaw  that  war 
was  imminent  and  that  their  military  tacticians  recognized  and 
admitted  that  in  the  event  of  their  purposed  attack  on  Germany 
— Russia  in  the  meanwhile  to  work  toward  Germany's  eastern 
frontier — Germany  would  have  to  choose  between  the  longer 
because  more  strongly  fortified  frontier  route  to  Paris  or  the 
comparatively  short  because  less  fortified  route  through  Bel- 
gium and  that  the  latter  was  by  far  the  more  feasible,  the 
General  Staffs  of  both  England  and  France  sometime  ago  care- 
fully mapped  out  every  Belgian  strategical  point. 

35 


English  Intervention  in  Belgium. 

The  archives  of  the  Belgian  General  Staff  at  Brussels  when 
searched  by  the  German  military  authorities,  were  found  to 
contain,  among  other  documents,  a  portfolio  inscribed  "Eng- 
lish Intervention  in  Belgium."  One  of  the  enclosed  documents 
dated  April  10th,  1906,  gave  in  detail  and  with  the  sanction 
of  Sir  James  M.  Grierson,  chief  of  the  British  General  Staff 
the  proposed  landing  of  100,000  English  troops  at  Dunkirk, 
Calais  and  Boulogne  and  the  transportation  to  and  provision 
for  these  troops  in  Belgium  in  the  event  of  a  war  between  France 
and  Germany.  Another  document  detailed  British  plans  for 
sending  supplies  and  provisions  by  way  of  Antwerp  after  Eng- 
land had  destroyed  the  German  navy  while  a  third  document 
mapped  out  the  strategical  positions  of  the  French  army  and 
demonstrated  that  a  Franco-Belgian  agreement  existed.  Taken 
together,  these  documents  indisputably  prove  that  the  British 
Government  had  fully  determined,  in  the  event  of  a  Franco- 
German  war,  to  at  once  invade  Belgium  without  even  consulting 
Belgium's  wishes  in  the  matter.  Further,  as  Dr.  Dernburg  has 
clearly  pointed  out,  "the  British  plans  even  considered  landing 
by  way  of  the  Scheldt,  thus  violating  also  Dutch  neutrality." 
The  Belgian  Minister  at  Berlin,  Baron  Greindl,  protested  that 
it  was  not  safe  to  trust  to  the  British  and  French  to  preserve 
Belgium's  neutrality.  Both  of  these  powers  violently  protested 
when  the  Dutch  Government  proposed  to  fortify  the  mouth  of 
the  Scheldt  in  1906.  When  the  Balkan  crisis  became  acute  in 
1912  Col.  Bridges  of  England  informed  Gen.  Jungbluth,  chief 
of  the  Belgian  General  Staff  that  England  was  ready  to  strike 
and  to  land  160,000  men  in  Belgium.  Gen.  Jungbluth  pro- 
tested that  Belgium's  permission  would  have  to  be  obtained.  Col. 
Bridges'  reply  was  that  England  knew  that,  but  as  Belgium  was 
not  strong  enough  to  protect  herself,  England  would  land  her 
troops  whether  Belgium  said  Yes  or  No.  It  is  therefore  and 
thereby  indisputably  established  that  England  was  ready  as 


long  ago  as  1912  to  invade  Belgium,  in  case  of  a  European  war. 
The  English  White  Book  chronicles  the  fact  that  on 
August  1st,  1914,  Prince  Lichnowsky,  the  German  Ambassador 
at  London,  asked  Sir  Edward  Grey  if  England  was  willing  to 
remain  neutral  if  Germany  agreed  not  to  march  through  Bel- 
gium, and  that  Grey  evaded  a  direct  reply.  Grey  then  knew 
that  his  arrangements  with  France  to  use  her  fleet  in  the  Medi- 
terranean to  protect  England's  food  supplies  from  that  section, 
England  to  protect  the  French  coast  in  the  meanwhile,  and  his 
assurances  to  Kussia  of  support  precluded  the  possibility  of 
English  neutrality  in  the  event  of  war  between  Germany  and 
either  Russia  or  France.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  only  Ger- 
many's prompt  action  at  Liege  that  prevented  England  from 
landing  troops  and  invading  Belgium  at  once  and  thus  "violat- 
ing Belgium's  neutrality"  herself. 

The  Deluded  Belgians. 

The  Belgians  are  devout  Catholics.  I  have  been  personally 
assured  by  a  prominent  priest  of  the  Catholic  Church  that  in  the 
early  days  of  the  war,  when  Germany  "knocked  at  the  gate" 
and  asked  for  entry  and  peaceful  passage  through  Belgium, 
Belgians,  disguised  as  Priests,  led  the  Belgian  mob  in  furious, 
though  unsuccessful  attacks  on  the  German  ranks.  A  Priest's 
word  is  Law  in  Belgium.  Disregarding  the  enormous  odds  in 
favor  of  seasoned  soldiers,  when  pitted  against  even  the  most 
frenzied  mob,  these  deluded  Belgians,  believing  that  their  lead- 
ers were  really  Priests,  hurled  themselves  with  impotent  fury 
upon  the  Germans  only  to  be  defeated. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  hostilities  the  Belgian  people  were 
told  that  the  Germans  demanded  that  the  Belgians  fight  with 
them  and  against  the  French  and  English.  They  never  knew  the 
truth  until  three  months  later  when  the  Belgian  Gray  Book  was 
published.  It  was  then  too  late.  Belgium  was  then  a  con- 
quered country.  The  Belgians  were  deluded  by  false  diplomacy 
and  worthless  British  promises.     Had  the  truth  been  known  to 

37 


them  when  Germany  first  asked  permission  to  peacefully  cross 
her  borders  her  present  plight  might  not  have  resulted.  Bel- 
gium could  have  saved  her  life  blood  and  her  treasures  just 
as  Luxemburg  has;  and  her  National  Honor  would  not  have 
been  sullied  either  by  her  gracious  acceptance  of  what,  in  all 
European  military  circles,  was  regarded  as  "the  inevitable." 
And  the  fact  that  these  planned  tactics  were  on  file  in  Brussels 
as  above  asserted,  has  been  established,  for  Germany  has  pub- 
lished photographic  reproductions  of  the  original  documents. 
These  documents  positively  prove  that  England  by  promis- 
ing support  that  she  knew  she  could  not  and  would  not  give  to 
Belgium  induced  the  Belgian  King  to  betray  his  own  people. 
England  said  "Hold  Liege  and  Namur  against  the  Germans 
and  in  thirteen  days  we  will  send  you  160,000  men."  Belgium 
would  not  now  be  a  scene  of  desolation  but  for  that  English 
encouragement.  Her  heroic,  though  futile,  attempt  to  main- 
tain her  position  as  a  "buffer"  to  England's  east  coast  has  cost 
Belgium  dearly.    The  German  Ambassador  asserts : 

"The  Anglo-Belgian  military  agreement  existing  since 
1906  proves  that  by  its  own  free  will  'Neutral  Belgium' 
accepted  the  British  offer  and  decided  to  fight  on  the  side 
of  the  Allies.  England  instigated  Belgium  to  go  to 
war  and  when  the  time  came  to  protect  the  unfortunate 
little  country  it  was  left  to  its  own  resources.  Ger- 
many, on  the  other  hand,  who  had  heard  of  Belgium's 
agreement  with  England  at  the  beginning  of  this  war, 
offered  to  protect  Belgium  and  to  pay  full  indemnity  for 
all  her  losses  and  Germany  would  have  religiously  kept 
her  promise.  The  documents  found  in  Brussels  further 
prove  that  as  far  back  as  1906  England  was  systematic- 
ally trying  to  bring  about  the  coalition  which  has  now 
forced  war  on  Germany." 

Who  Was  the  Violator? 
It  is  stated  on  credible  authority  that  during  the  summer 


of  1914  and  before  the  assassination  of  Ferdinand,  Lord  Kitch- 
ener "went  secretly  to  Belgium  to  arrange  with  the  Belgian 
headquarters  staff  about  the  disposition  of  the  English  expe- 
ditionary forces."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Belgium  thereby  de- 
stroyed her  own  proclaimed  neutrality  and  therefore  as  her 
neutrality  no  longer  actually  existed  England's  loudly  heralded 
and  virtuously  justified  excuse  for  summarily  declaring  war 
on  Germany  does  not  ring  true,  especially  when  one  recalls 
that  on  a  much  slighter  pretext  England  entered  the  port  of 
Copenhagen,  destroyed  the  surprised  Danish  fleet  and  com- 
placently occupied  that  port  until  the  end  of  the  Napoleonic 
wars.  Yet  when  Germany,  who  had  often  and  unmistakably 
shown  her  respect  and  friendship  for  Belgium,  asked  for  a 
I)eaceful  passage  through  her  territory,  Belgium  did  not  even 
file  a  formal  protest  but  supported  by  England  and  France  she 
began  to  fight  against  "the  German  invasion." 

Twice  Belgium  was  given  the  opportunity  to  stop  fighting 
and  each  time  Germany  guaranteed  Belgium's  territorial  in- 
tegrity provided  she  in  turn  granted  a  peaceful  passage  through 
her  country  to  the  German  Army,  but  both  times  Belgium 
refused.  The  lamentable  results  that  followed  are  therefore 
entirely  due  to  Belgian  obstinacy  plus  Anglo-French  promises 
of  military  support.  It  was  not,  therefore,  Germany's  invasion 
of  Belgian  territory  but  the  collusion  of  France  and  England 
with  Belgium  that  actually  produced  the  violation  of  Belgian 
neutrality  and  that  fact  makes  England's  course  still  more  dis- 
honorable. 

British  Inconsistency. 

To  be  consistent,  England  at  least  should  have  criticized  her 
Asiatic  ally  for  the  violation  of  China's  neutrality  in  occupying 
Chinese  territory  in  connection  with  her  attack  upon  Kiao- 
Chow,  but  did  she?  There  was  neither  an  emergent  necessity 
nor  a  recognized  tactical  need  for  Japan's  invasion  of  all  of  the 
Chinese  territory  she  occupied.  On  the  other  hand  all  tac- 
ticians and  many  statesmen  including  Gladstone  acknowledged 

39 


that  Germany's  only  practicable  route  to  France  was  via  Bel- 
gium. In  the  one  case  England,  by  acquiescence,  endorses  a 
needless  violation  of  neutrality;  in  the  other  case  she  declares 
war. 

No  thinking  person  would  be  so  credulous  as  to  believe  that 
if  France  had  violated  Belgium's  much  discussed  ''neutrality" 
England  would  have  declared  war  on  France. 

In  other  words,  England's  virtuous  indignation  was  aimed 
at  the  violator,  not  at  the  violation ! 

"A  Scrap  of  Papbe.'^ 

"Tearing  up  a  scrap  of  paper"  is  the  way  some  American 
newspaper  men  refer  to  the  breaking  of  a  treaty  between  Na- 
tions. These  writers  insist  that  the  entry  of  Germany  into 
Belgium  is  quite  an  unpardonable  sin.  They  either  do  not 
know  or  have  forgotten  that  England,  only  four  years  after 
having  signed  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  occupied  Egypt,  although 
at  that  time  Egypt  was  a  part  of  the  Turkish  Empire  whose 
integrity  this  very  treaty  of  Berlin  guaranteed.  Japan  "  Japan- 
ized"  both  Korea  and  Manchuria  after  the  Russo-Japanese  war, 
although  she  had  already  guaranteed  China's  integrity.  Eng- 
land protested  against  Germany's  "invasion"  of  Belgium,  yet 
did  England  observe  the  neutrality  of  Turkey  when  three  days 
later  she  seized  several  dreadnoughts  building  in  British  yards 
for  Turkey  and  already  paid  for  by  Turkey?  Did  England 
observe  neutrality  when  she  sank  the  German  steamer,  "Kaiser 
Wilhelm  der  Grosse"  in  the  neutral  harbor  Rio  del  Oro,  within 
the  three  mile  limit,  or  when  she  sent  her  aviators  across  Swiss 
territory  to  throw  bombs  into  Friedrichshaf en  ? 

The  Dresden  incident  still  more  forcibly  illustrates  Eng- 
land's disregard  of  all  precedents  and  international  law.  An- 
chored in  the  neutral  Chilian  harbor  of  Juan  Fernandez  Island, 
her  machinery  damaged  and  without  coal  and  about  a  quarter 
of  a  mile  from  shore,  the  Dresden's  commander,  when  the  Brit- 
ish squadron  opened  fire  upon  his  ship,  hoisted  the  Parliamen- 

40 


tary  flag  and  advised  the  British  commander  that  the  Dresden 
was  in  neutral  waters  and  therefore  immune  from  attack.  The 
Briton's  reply  was  that  his  orders  were  to  sink  the  Dresden,  no 
matter  where  and  to  let  the  diplomats  fight  it  out  afterwards. 
The  Dresden's  commander  ordered  his  crew  ashore  but  blew  up 
his  vessel  rather  than  give  the  enemy  the  satisfaction  of  sinking 
her.  Is  that  War  or  Piracy?  The  captain  of  the  Chilian  ves- 
sel Argentina  confirmed  the  above  report  as  strictly  in  accord- 
ance with  the  facts.  The  Argentina  was  close  to  the  Dresden 
and  was  hit  by  British  shells.  England  now  concedes  the  truth 
— mirahile  dictu — and  has  "apologized"  to  Chili.  She  thereby 
answers  our  query — "Is  it  War  or  Piracy!" 

China  issued  an  edict  against  the  cultivation  and  use  of 
Opium.  Our  country  and  England  agreed  to  help  her.  Our 
country  passed  and  still  enforces  most  rigid  anti-opium  laws. 
But  England  broke  faith  because  the  opium  traffic  was  worth 
110,000,000  a  year  to  India  and  India  now  ships  enormous  quan- 
tities of  opium  into  China,  regardless  of  protest.  England  de- 
manded, and  got,  as  an  indemnity  the  island  on  which  Hong- 
Kong  stands,  for  the  destruction  by  China  of  several  shiploads 
of  opium  from  India  consigned  to  Chinese  merchants. 

These  few  historic  episodes,  taken  at  random,  clearly  prove 
that  Treaty-breaking  is  not  strictly  a  German  enterprise,  for 
the  history  of  the  past  century  shows  that  practically  every 
European  nation  has  been  guilty  of  it. 

The  invalidating  of  German  Patents  issued  in  England  and 
her  colonies  is  another  illustration  of  "tearing  up  a  scrap  of 
paper."  What  a  travesty  on  common  decency !  What  a  shining 
example  of  Christian  Civilization!  What  an  unanswerable 
argument  in  favor  of  "Cultured  Albion's"  moral  supremacy  and 
mental  superiority  over  the  "Barbaric  Teuton!" 

The  "scrap  of  paper"  that  has  afforded  an  excuse  for  so 
many  unbalanced  and  even  vituperative  editorial  attacks  on 
"German  Diplomacy"  since  August  3d,  1914  (the  date  when 
Germany  touched  the  Belgian  border)  is  an  obsolete  treaty, 

41 


whereby  Belgium's  neutrality  was  to  be  respected  and  main- 
tained. On  August  2d,  while  diplomatic  negotiations  between 
Germany  and  England,  on  the  text  of  this  very  treaty  or  "con- 
tract" were  in  active  progress,  England  refused  "to  tie  her 
hands"  against  Germany  but  agreed  with  France  to  defend  the 
northern  ports  of  France  against  possible  German  naval  at- 
tacks. Judge  Grosscup  interprets  the  position  of  England 
towards  Germany  as  follows:  "You  shall  not  use  the  neutral 
seas  to  attack  with  your  navy  the  northern  ports  of  France  or 
open  them  up  to  your  armies.  I  will  use  my  navy  to  prevent  you 
from  the  use  of  such  neutral  seas.  Nor  shall  you  reach  north- 
ern France  with  your  armies  through  Belgium.  I  will  use  this 
'contract'  of  neutrality  to  block  that.  My  obligation  toward 
neutrality  amounts  to  nothing  on  the  seas ;  but  your  obligation 
of  neutrality  is  everything  on  the  land.  And  because  Germany 
did  not  submit  to  this  double  cross  on  her  right  to  attack 
France  from  the  north,  England  professes  to  have  gone  into 
the  war  as  the  champion  of  the  cause  of  the  inviolability  of 
treaties  and  of  neutrality."  In  this  "I  win,  you  lose"  crisis 
what  could  Germany  do,  what  could  any  self-respecting  nation 
do  but  "tear  up  the  scrap  of  paper"? 

Germany  Unsheaths  Hee  Sword. 

It  is  an  established  fact  that  the  Kaiser  hesitated  to  sign  the 
Declaration  of  War,  after  it  was  sanctioned  by  the  Federal 
Council,  even  when  the  time  limit  of  the  German  ultimatum  to 
Russia  had  expired.  He  still  hoped  that  something  would 
intervene  to  prevent  this  dreadful  catastrophe.  It  was  only 
after  his  General  Staff  laid  before  him  indisputable  proofs  that 
Russia  had  actually  crossed  the  frontier  that,  with  his  eyes 
blinded  with  tears,  he  signed  the  declaration  of  war.  Then  and 
not  until  then  did  the  great  German  fighting  machine  begin 
real  mobilization  and  the  Kaiser's  un-mobilized  troops  struck 
quickly  through  Belgium.     To  have  temporized  then  would 

42 


have  been  worse  than  treason  to  the  Teutonic  throne, — it  would 
have  been  national  suicide. 

Germany  Declared  War 

on  Russia  and  France  before  she  began  operations  against 
either.  That  is  Civilized  warfare.  In  the  Russo-Japanese  war 
Japan  destroyed  the  Russian  fleet  riding  at  anchor  at  Port 
Arthur  without  going  through  the  formality  of  a  declaration  of 
war  against  Russia.     That  is  Asiatic  warfare. 

What  Would  Wb  Have  Done? 

We  Americans  can  best  appreciate  the  intense  diplomatic 
crisis  that  precipitated  the  Kaiser's  "Forward,  March,"  when 
we  recall  a  comparatively  minor  crisis  at  Vera  Cruz  during 
the  recent  Mexican  complication.  To  protect  non-combatant 
interests,  chiefly  American,  and  in  reparation  for  the  mistreat- 
ment of  some  of  our  marines  we  demanded  a  salute  to  our  flag — 
a  demand  which  was  never  effectually  enforced  but  which  at  the 
time  quite  seriously  jeopardized  our  peaceful  relations  with 
Mexico.  We  occupied  Vera  Cruz  without  declaring  war  on 
Mexico.  Suppose  Japan  still  smarting  from  the  lash  of 
California's  anti-Japanese  propaganda,  had  made  Mexico's 
cause  her  own  and  had  at  once  started  her  sea-flghters 
towards  the  Pacific  shore.  Would  any  American  have 
endorsed  a  "watchful  waiting"  policy  and  applauded  our  Pres- 
ident for  refusing  to  sign  a  declaration  of  war  until  the  Japan- 
ese navy  actually  began  to  bombard  San  Francisco?  Are  not 
the  two  cases  essentially  parallel?  To  carry  the  simile  still 
further  so  as  to  even  more  closely  approach  the  situation  at 
Berlin, — suppose  England  had  also  sided  with  Mexico  and 
started  her  enormous  fleet,  then  riding  at  anchor  in  her  home 
waters,  towards  Sandy  Hook.  Which  Nation  would  our  mili- 
tary men  have  struck  at  first — far-off  Japan  or  near-by  Eng- 
land? There  can  be  but  one  answer  and  that  is  also  the  same 
"reason  why"  Germany  struck  first  at  near-by  France.     Delay 

43 


was  dangerous.  Germany's  national  existence,  as  well  as  that 
of  Austria-Hungary  was  threatened  with  absolute  extinction 
and,  as  "the  die  was  cast"  by  the  Triple  Entente,  Germany  was 
forced  to  unsheath  her  sword  to  defend  her  life  and  legitimate 
interests  with  the  blood  and  treasure  of  her  own  sons. 

Not  the  Kaisee^s  Wae. 

But  it  is  not  the  Kaiser's  War;  neither  is  it  the  German 
Empire's  War.  This  war  was  forced  upon  all  Germany,  for 
the  Kaiser  and  the  people  are  in  unison  and  stand  shoulder  to 
shoulder  against  the  enemy.  The  entire  German  Nation  is  as 
one  man  in  this  titanic  struggle.  From  Emperor  to  peasant 
all  are  loyal,  self-sacrificing  Germans  in  this  terrible  conflict. 
Even  the  millions  of  Germany's  Socialists,  who  for  years  have 
opposed  some  of  the  Kaiser's  policies,  are  with  him  to  a  man  in 
this  war.  Although  the  Socialists  are  opposed  to  the  monar- 
chical form  of  Government  and  do  not  believe  in  war, 
it  is  of  official  record  that  in  the  Reichstag,  when  the  bill 
authorizing  an  enormous  war  credit  was  presented,  every 
Socialist-member  of  the  Reichstag  enthusiastically  voted 
for  it  without  a  moment's  hesitation  or  protest.  It  is 
equally  significant  to  add  that  the  government  loan  was 
promptly  and  very  considerably  over-subscribed  for  by  the 
German  people.  Even  more  noteworthy  is  the  authentic  fact 
that  within  a  week  from  the  hour  when  the  Kaiser's  call  "To 
Arms"  rang  through  the  Empire,  1,300,000  able-bodied  young 
men,  who,  because  not  heretofore  needed,  had  not  yet  served 
in  the  army,  rallied  round  the  flag,  anxious  to  fight  for  the 
Fatherland.  Every  section  of  the  Empire  was  represented, — 
Alsace-Lorraine  with  90,000, — University  professors,  students, 
artists,  musicians,  physicians,  EVERYBODY — even  men  over 
50  volunteered.  The  whole  German  nation  raised  the  gauntlet 
which  the  Triple  Entente  had  thrown  down.  Germany  and 
Austria-Hungary  had  to  choose  between  a  war  of  self-defense 

44 


for  National  existence  or  National  abdication  and  political 
bankruptcy.     They  regretfully  chose  War! 

John  L.  Stoddard,  the  well  known  lecturer,  writer  and  trav- 
eller, speaking  of  the  genuine  patriotism  of  the  entire  German 
Empire,  says : 

"It  is  a  people's  war  ♦  ♦  ♦  nor  are  its  princes  sitting 
back,  like  the  royal  figure-heads  of  England  and  Russia,  letting 
their  subjects  do  the  fighting." 

Two  Gbrmanys. 

In  the  minds  of  many  Americans  there  is  a  belief  that  there 
are  two  Germanys, — "the  Kaiser's  Germany,"  meaning  the 
military  Autocracy,  so  called,  and  "the  University's  Germany," 
meaning  the  intellectual,  artistic  "Germany  of  Ideals."  They 
overlook  the  fact  that  no  German  is  more  closely  allied  with 
the  "Germany  of  Ideals"  than  is  the  Kaiser.  Was  it  not  he 
who  fathered  the  idea  of  an  interchange  of  University  Pro- 
fessors with  the  United  States  of  America?  Who,  in  current 
times,  has  done  more  than  he  for  the  intellectual  uplift,  not 
alone  of  Germany,  but  of  the  world  at  large?  While  such 
bodies  as  the  German  Navy  League  are  the  natural  outcome  of 
all  military  organizations — not  excepting  our  own  Army  and 
Navy — their  liking  for  military  display  of  power  and  efficiency 
in  actual  practice  has,  at  least  in  Germany,  been  immeasurably 
overshadowed  by  the  more  pacific  aggregation  of  the  great  ma- 
jority of  the  German  people.  If  we  consent,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  two  Germanys  exist,  it  is  only  so  that  we  may  em- 
phasize the  statement  that  "the  Kaiser's  Germany" — the  army 
— is  fighting  to  protect  and  preserve  "the  University's  Ger- 
many" side  by  side  with  its  logical  coadjutor  "Commercial 
Germany"  and  that  that  is  one  of  the  most  important  reasons, 
if  not  the  sole  reason  for  the  existence  of  the  so-called  "Kaiser's 
Germany."  The  German  Army  and  Navy  are  maintained  to 
defend,  protect  and  preserve  the  "Germany  of  Ideals"  and  not 
as  is  so  frequently  said  for  "the  domination  of  Europe  and  the 

46 


World  by  the  Germanic  Kace."  Repeatedly  the  Kaiser  has  em- 
phatically assured  the  world  that  while  it  was  not  his  intention 
to  have  a  Navy  for  aggression,  he  wanted  one  that  would  com- 
mand the  respect  of  the  World.  "I  want  to  do  everything  pos- 
sible to  let  bayonets  and  cannon  rest;  but  at  the  same  time  to 
keep  our  bayonets  sharp  and  cannon  ready,  so  that  envy  and 
grief  shall  not  disturb  us  in  tending  our  garden  or  building  our 
beautiful  house."  Since  the  Kaiser  and  the  German  people  are 
absolutely  of  one  mind  in  the  present  conflict  the  utter  absurdity 
of  the  misguided  wish  of  some  American  sympathizers  with  the 
German  people  that  "the  Kaiser  might  be  beaten  and  the  Ger- 
man people  win"  will  at  once  be  evident.  All  Germany  will 
either  win  or  lose,  for  there  is  only  one  Germany  and  that  in- 
cludes every  man,  woman  and  child,  from  the  Kaiser  to  the 
lowliest  peasant. 

The  Most  Lied- About  Man. 

Practically  ever  since  the  Kaiser  became  the  head  of  the 
German  Empire  he  has  been  a  target  for  an  enormous  amount 
of  sarcasm,  criticism,  abuse  and  persistent  misrepresentation. 
He  is  undoubtedly  the  most  lied-about  man  of  this  Era. 

His  detractors  have  derided  his  unquestionable  skill  in 
musical  composition  and  sneeringly  alluded  to  him  as  "the  Im- 
perial Bandmaster  of  Berlin."  Those  who  themselves  could 
scarcely  draw  a  straight  line  laughed  at  his  art  work.  There 
were  those  who  irreverently  commented  upon  his  pronounced 
religious  proclivity.  "War  Lord"  has  been  dinned  into  the 
brains  of  the  reading  public  particularly  in  England  and 
through  English  pens,  in  America,  in  season  and  out.  No  oppor- 
tunity to  thus  create  prejudice  against  the  Kaiser  was  allowed 
to  escape.  All  advertisers  know  that  the  constant  repetition  of 
a  word  or  a  phrase,  even  though  not  true,  will  in  time  be  almost 
universally  convincing  to  the  general  public.  For  that  reason 
the  Kaiser's  detractors  kept  everlastingly  at  it,  hoping  that 
when  "the  time"  did  come,  all  worth-while  people  in  America 

46 


particularly  would  be  ao  prejudiced  against  the  Kaiser  that 
neither  he  nor  the  Empire  would  have  any  friends  or  sympathiz- 
ers on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  That  this  perennial  persecution 
was  to  a  great  extent  successful  was  clearly  shown  by  the  an- 
tagonistic attitude  toward  Germany  of  the  American  press  at 
the  outbreak  of  hostilities.  Every  great  man  is  eventually 
rightly  placed  in  that  niche  of  fame  to  which  he  is  justly  en- 
titled and  some  day  history  will  correctly  concede  the  Kaiser, 
those  attributes,  honors,  and  distinctions  to  which  he  is  emi- 
nently entitled  and  which  for  years  have  endeared  him  to  the 
German  people. 

President  Nicholas  Murray  Butler  of  the  Columbia  Univer- 
sity in  1913 — ^after  extolling  the  Kaiser's  character,  his  efforts 
to  avoid  armed  conflict  with  other  nations,  etc.,  says :  ^^If  the 
German  Emperor  had  not  been  horn  to  monarchy,  he  would 
have  been  chosen  Monarch — or  chief  executive — by  popular  vote 
of  any  modern  people  among  whom  his  lot  might  have  been 

cast  ^^ 

The  Wae  Lord. 

The  Kaiser  has  for  years  been  sneeringly  referred  to  as 
"The  War  Lord."  The  literal  English  equivalent  for  the  Ger- 
man "Kriegs-Herr,"  the  Kaiser's  official  military  title,  is  "War 
Chief  and  is  synonymous  with  the  title  "Commander-in- 
Chief,"  constitutionally  conferred  upon  and  in  time  of  need 
made  operative  by  our  own  President.  The  Kaiser,  therefore, 
occupies  exactly  the  same  official  position  in  connection  with 
Germany's  military  organization  on  land  and  sea  as  does  our 
President  in  connection  with  our  Army  and  Navy. 

The  Kaiser  a  Peacemaker. 

The  unbiased  historian  of  the  future  will  convincingly  chron- 
icle the  as  yet  not  universally  conceded  fact  that  Kaiser  Wilhelm 
II  did  more  to  create  and  maintain  Peace  in  the  world  than  any 
other  man  of  his  time.  No  less  a  distinguished  promoter  of 
World  Peace  than  Andrew  Carnegie  himself,  only  a  year  or  so 

47 


ago  accorded  to  him  the  honorable  distinction  of  being  of  all 
men  the  world's  greatest  and  most  consistent  Peace  Advocate. 
Dr.  Benjamin  Ide  Wheeler,  President  of  the  University  of  Cal- 
ifornia, says  of  his  interview  with  the  Kaiser  at  Potsdam  in 
June,  1913,  *What  Germany  needed,'  the  Emperor  said,  ^was 
assurance  of  permanency  for  her  trade  relations  so  that  her 
manufactured  wares  might  find  markets.  This  was  to  be 
made  secure  by  a  navy.  Force  must  be  available  for 
crimes,  but  the  real  empire  which  Germany  was  to  assert  in 
the  world  must  inhere  in  the  prestige,  respect,  and  influence 
which  were  won  for  her  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  by  her  achieve- 
ments in  art,  education,  music,  medicine,  and  the  like.  Ger- 
many's well-being  was  peculiarly  dependent  on  peace,  because 
war  would  immediately  close  to  her  all  markets,  widely  dis- 
tributed over  the  world.  Under  no  conditions  must  she  think 
of  increasing  her  territory  in  Europe.  She  wanted  no  more 
sore  frontiers.  She  had  three  already.  Nothing  but  trouble 
could  come  of  such  conditions.  Germany  must  have  loyal 
frontiers.  It  must  be  a  homogeneous  body  standing  firm  in  the 
middle  of  Europe  persistent  to  keep  the  peace.' 

"The  war  which  all  have  dreaded  for  years  has  come.  ♦  ♦  ♦ 
Whoever  is  responsible  for  bringing  it  about  or  letting  it  come 
about  bears  before  the  high  court  of  humanity  a  heavy  indict- 
ment. History  will  unerringly  assign  its  verdict.  Some  day 
all  men  will  know  who  it  was  and  what  it  was.  But  whoever 
it  was  and  whatever  it  was,  and  however  the  blame  may  be 
apportioned  among  various  men  and  organizations  of  men, 
this  much  can  now  be  asserted  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt : 
the  war  came  about  against  the  interests,  against  the  desires, 
and  against  the  efforts  of  the  German  Kaiser." 

Ex-President  Taft,  in  1913,  speaking  of  the  German  Em- 
peror said :  "  ♦  ♦  ♦  the  truth  of  history  requires  the  ver- 
dict that,  considering  the  critically  important  part  which  has 
been  his  among  the  nations,  he  has  been,  for  the  last  quarter  of 

48 


a  century  the  greatest  single  individual  force  in  the  practical 
maintenance  of  peace  in  the  world." 

Germany^s  Peaceful  Attitude. 

How  easily  Germany  could  have  crushed  France  in  1875 
when  she  was  just  recovering  from  Sedan  and  Strassburg! 
Quite  as  easy  would  have  been  the  humiliation  of  Russia  while 
the  Czar  was  vainly  trying  to  defeat  the  Mikado!  What  an 
easy  diplomatic  problem  to  have  incited  war  between  France 
and  England  after  Fashoda!  Did  these  critical  episodes  prove 
that  Germany  was  anxious  for  war  or  that  she  wanted  to  be 
at  Peace  with  the  rest  of  the  World?  What  could  any  man 
have  done  more  than  the  German  Emperor  did  to  prevent  this 
war?  England  could  undoubtedly  have  induced  the  Czar  to 
allow  Austria  and  Servia  to  settle  their  own  quarrel  without 
Russian  intervention,  but  did  she  make  the  effort?  No!  She 
preferred  to  help  Russia  carry  out  her  claims  to  be  the  natural 
protector  of  all  Slavs,  ignoring  the  fact  that  the  Austrian  Em- 
pire is  as  much  Slav  as  German.  The  hollowness  of  Russians 
pretenses  of  protectorship  of  all  Slavs  was  shown  in  the  early 
days  of  the  war  when  the  Poles  revolted  and  welcomed  the 
German  and  Austrian  soldiers  as  friends.  Equally  significant 
is  the  fact  that  every  Pole  in  Germany  and  Austria  subject  to 
military  duty  cheerfully  joined  his  country's  colors. 

True  Patriotism. 

That  brilliant  cynic,  Madame  de  Stael,  once  said  "The 
patriotism  of  nations  ought  to  be  selfish."  That  may  be  true 
of  some  nations.  It  is  certainly  not  true  of  Germany.  Love  of 
his  country,  his  Fatherland,  is  a  part  of  every  German's  re- 
ligion. Every  German  knows  all  of  the  words  of  "Die  Wacht 
am  Rhein."  Germans  instinctively  reverence  their  flag  as  they 
do  their  traditions,  their  history,  the  memory  of  their  Schiller, 
Goethe,  Schumann,  Beethoven,  Wagner,  and  an  almost  innum- 
erable host  of  intellectual  heroes  who  have  left  ineffaceable 

49 


"footsteps  in  the  sands  of  time."  To  most  nations  music  is  an 
accomplishment.  It  is  an  integral  part  of  every  German's  life 
and  is  an  indissoluble  part  of  his  religious  life.  But  even  that 
70-year-old  German  patriotic  song  "Deutschland  tiber  Alles'' 
has  been  maliciously  mistranslated  as  "Germany  over  alP'  giv- 
ing it  the  sinister  meaning  "Germany  to  rule  the  world."  Noth- 
ing could  be  much  farther  from  the  truth.  To  the  Germans  that 
song  means  "Germany  is  the  best  country  of  all"  or  "above 
all  other  lands  for  me."  What  England  is  to  the  Briton,  what 
France  is  to  her  sons,  what  the  United  States  of  America  is 
to  us,  that  Germany  is  to  the  Germans.  "Deutschland  Tiber 
AUes"  fervently  expresses  the  Teuton's  love  of  his  Fatherland, 
nothing  more,  nothing  less.  It  is  most  emphatically  not  a  song 
of  conquest.  It  was  written  long  before  the  Empire  was  created, 
long  before  Germany  became  a  great  commercial  country.  It 
never  was,  is  not  now,  and  never  can  be  a  "war  song,"  a  song 
of  conquest.  It  is  a  patriotic  hymn  of  Peace.  The  German  is 
a  God-fearing,  God-loving  man.  Even  his  language  is  remark- 
ably deficient  in  words  of  profanity.  And  his  patriotism  is 
real,  honest  and  enduring  to  the  end.  When,  as  now,  the  very 
existence  of  his  Fatherland  is  threatened,  every  German  showed 
the  reality  and  loyalty  of  his  love  of  country.  They  did  not  wait 
to  be  drafted  into  military  service.  They  voluntarily  rallied 
to  the  colors  by  the  million.  Of  such  citizens  is  the  great  Ger- 
man Empire  composed.  Cowardice  and  disloyalty  are  tabooed 
words  in  the  German  language. 

The  Kaiser  at  the  Front. 

What  more  soul-thrilling  example  has  ever  been  set  by  any 
ruler  in  ancient  or  modern  times  than  that  set  by  the  Kaiser? 
He  went  to  the  front  himself  and  he  also  sent  his  six  sons  and 
his  only  son-in-law  to  the  firing  line.  Prince  Henry  of  Prussia, 
the  Kaiser's  brother,  and  his  eldest  son  followed  the  Kaiser's 
example.  Four  princes  of  the  blood  royal,  ten  reigning  princes 
and  more  than  fifteen  princes  of  reigning  families  also  went  to 

60 


the  front.  Eight  princes  have  given  up  their  lives  in  defense  of 
the  Fatherland.  The  Kaiser's  headquarters  were  moved  from 
place  to  place,  East  and  West,  but  always  to  the  place  where  the 
fighting  was  the  hardest  and  where,  by  his  counsel  he  could 
encourage  his  officers  and  where  by  his  presence  he  could  en- 
thuse his  loyal  soldiers  to  unprecedented  deeds  of  valor.  It  does 
not  seem  to  be  a  part  of  the  history  of  this  great  war  to  state 
that  either  England's  King,  Russia's  Czar  or  France's  President 
got  very  near  the  firing  line.  That  fact  may  have  prompted  the 
remark  often  quoted — "Germany  will  fight  to  the  last  drop  of 
German  blood ;  England  will  fight  to  the  last — Frenchman." 

The  German  Women. 

And  whether  the  Imperial  Eagle  shall  be  victorious  or 
vanquished,  the  whole  Empire  and  all  her  sons,  will  reverently 
salute  and  tenderly  cherish  the  memory  of  the  German  Women ! 
No  more  efficient  nurses  ever  wore  the  Red  Cross  emblem. 
Brave  as  Uhlans,  they  forgot  self  and  personal  safety  in  their 
unceasing  ministrations  to  the  sick  and  wounded  on  the  battle- 
field and  in  the  hospitals.  Others  equally  self-sacrificing  indus- 
triously plied  their  needles  at  home  in  making  bandages,  gloves, 
sweaters,  undergarments,  etc.,  for  the  brave  boys  at  the  front, 
while  those  living  in  rural  communities  garnered  the  crops  and 
guarded  their  hearthstones  against  hunger  and  want.  And  be 
it  said  they  did  it  well  because  their  hearts  were  in  their  work 
and  as  they  tirelessly  worked,  their  prayers  for  the  safety  and 
victory  of  their  beloved  Fatherland  were  as  unceasing  as  they 
were  earnest. 

Emulating  the  patriotic  example  of  the  Kaiser  every  Ger- 
man mother  sent  all  of  her  sons  of  military  age  to  fight  for  the 
Fatherland  and  bewailed  the  fact  that  she  had  no  more  to  send. 
Those  who  had  daughters  bitterly  resented  that  they  were  not 
sons ;  but  these  very  daughters  proved  themselves  worthy  by  be- 
coming nurses  or  by  doing  the  work  formerly  done  by  men 
wherever  feasible. 

51 


Such  deeds  reflect  the  spirit,  the  patriotism  and  the  deter- 
mination of  a  great  people! 

All  hail  to  the  brave  German  women !  May  the  memory  of 
their  patriotic  devotion  to  Germany's  righteous  cause  be  ever- 
lasting ! 

Development  of  Democracy. 

England  claims  that  Germany's  victory  would  retard  the 
development  of  democracy.  She  can,  however,  as  an  evidence 
of  her  willingness  to  foster  democratic  growth  along  practical 
lines,  scarcely  point  with  pride  to  her  recent  division  of  Persia 
with  Kussia,  to  her  persecution  and  oppression  of  Ireland  for 
centuries,  to  her  "theft"  of  Egypt,  to  her  subjugation  of  the 
Boers,  nor  yet  to  her  abject  subjection  of  India.  These  do  not 
prove  British  sincerity  in  the  cause  of  democracy.  Compare 
these  English  object  lessons  with  the  three  free  German  states  of 
Hamburg,  Bremen  and  Ltibeck.  While  these  three  form  a 
part  of  the  German  Empire,  each  is  a  self-governing  republic 
with  her  own  legislative  bodies.  In  1870  Hamburg  had  a  popu- 
lation of  250,000.  At  the  outbreak  of  the  war  she  had  1,000,000 
inhabitants.  Both  Bremen  and  Ltibeck  were  happy,  prosperous 
republics.  Not  one  of  the  26  states  comprising  the  German  Em- 
pire shows  even  a  trace  of  the  so-called  "Prussia's  blighting  in- 
fluence." Quite  to  the  contrary,  before  war  broke  out  Germany 
was  a  happy,  very  busy,  very  prosperous  nation  with  the 
greatest  per  capita  wealth  in  the  world.  And  she  hoped  that  the 
Peace  which  she  so  thoroughly  enjoyed  would  last  forever.  But 
the  Triple  Entente  willed  it  otherwise. 

Since  the  Franco-Prussian  War  the  population  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine  has  nearly  trebled.  Ireland's  population  today  is 
about  one-third  what  it  was  70  years  ago.  Alsace-Lorraine  has 
an  area  about  one-sixth  as  large  as  Ireland.  The  Rhine  is  one 
of  the  busiest  rivers  in  the  world.  Ireland's  beautiful  Shannon 
rarely  floats  a  commercial  craft.  Her  harbors  are  as  deep  and 
safe  as  those  of  the  Rhine  and  the  Shannon's  shores  are  as 
naturally  fertile  as  those  of  the  Rhine.     Yet  for  every  $128.00 

52 


owned  by  an  Irishman  the  Alsatian  has  |915.00.  What  better 
object  lesson  could  anyone  want  in  order  to  justly  compare  the 
English  and  German  methods?  One  depresses;  the  other  ele- 
vates.    One  crushes  enterprise ;  the  other  encourages  it. 

What  Eminent  Men  Say. 

Lord  Roberts  shortly  before  his  death  said : 

"Fight  with  your  muskets  but  do  not  attempt  to  kill 

the  Germans  with  words.    Every  educated  person  knows 

today  that  Germany  leads  upon  the  field  of  culture,  that 

Germany  is  the  advance  guard  of  civilization." 

G.    Bernard    Shaw,    writing   from    London   August   20th, 

1914,  to  "The  International"  says  among  other  pithy  truths : 

"We  are  all  three — France,  Germany  and  England 
alike — committing  a  crime  against  civilization  for  the 
benefit  of  Russia.  .  .  .  For  the  present  there  is  only 
one  thing  to  be  done  besides  fighting  for  all  we  are 
worth  ...  to  set  to  work  immediately  to  draft  the 
inevitable  Treaty  of  Peace,  which  we  must  all  sign  when 
we  have  had  our  bellyful  of  murder  and  destruction. 

"France,  instead  of  using  her  surplus  income  in  abol- 
ishing French  slums  and  building  up  French  children 
into  strong  men  and  women,  has  lent  it  to  Russia  to 
strengthen  the  most  tyrannical  government  in  Europe 
and  to  secure  the  interest  on  her  loan.  She  has  entered 
into  an  unnatural  alliance  with  Russia  against  her  more 
civilized  neighbors.     .     .     . 

"We  made  an  agreement  with  Russia  of  a  still  more 
sordidly  commercial  character  for  the  exploitation  of 
Persia  with  capital  that  should  have  fed  our  starving 
children. 

"Now  mark  the  consequences.  Germany  with  hostile 
France  on  one  side  and  hostile  Russia  on  the  other,  is  in 
a  position  so  dangerous  that  we  in  our  secure  island  can 
form  no  conception  of  its  intolerable  tension. 

63 


"By  our  blindness  we  have  brought  about  the  war. 
We  have  deliberately  added  to  the  strain  by  making  a 
military  and  naval  anti-Grerman  alliance  with  France 
without  at  the  same  time  balancing  its  effect  by  assuring 
Germany  that  if  she  kept  peace  with  France  we  would 
not  help  Russia  against  her  nor  in  the  last  resource  al- 
low Russia  to  advance  her  frontier  westward. 

"Is  it  to  be  wondered  that  Potsdam  militarism,  with 
its  chronic  state  of  panic,  with  militarism  raised  to  des- 
peration by  the  menace  of  Russia,  France  and  England, 
made  a  wild  attempt  to  cut  its  way  out  after  a  despairing 
appeal  to  us  to  let  it  fight  one  to  two  instead  of  one 
to  three? 

"Let  us  be  just  to  Potsdam.     It  may  serve  Potsdam 
right  that  she  frightened  us  all  so  much  that  we  became 
incapable  of  realizing  that  our  terror  was  nothing  to 
hers,  but  if  we  had  been  true  to  civilization  and  kept  our 
capital  at  home  and  our  honor  untarnished  by  squalid 
commercial  adventures  in  the  East,  we  should  have  con- 
trolled the  situation  and  kept  the  European  peace.  His- 
tory will  not  excuse  us  because  after  making  war  inevit- 
able we  run  round  at  the  last  moment  begging  everybody 
not  to  make  a  disturbance." 
No  more  serious  nor  just  arraignment  of  Great  Britain 
than  Shaw's  has  come  from  any  pen — not  even  Teutonic.  Shaw 
might  have  strengthened  his  case  against  his  own  country  by 
quoting  from  Sir  Edward  Grey's  speech  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons just  before  war  was  declared,  "Are  we  not  in  honor  bound 
to  defend  the  French  coasts  of  the  North  Sea  against  an  attack 
by  the  German  fleet,  having  advised  the  French  Government  to 
send  all  its  battleships  to  the  Mediterranean?" 

Sir  Roger  Casement,  until  recently  a  member  of  the  British 
diplomatic  service,  expresses  his  views  on  the  European  war 
• — before  England  had  joined  France  and  Russia — in  the  Brook- 
lyn Eagle.     He  says: 

54 


"I  deplore  this  war.  It  is  a  grievous  calamity  for 
the  whole  world.  I  think  it  is  a  crime,  but  I  do  not 
believe  that  Germany  is  the  guilty  party.  She  did  not 
seek  the  quarrel  and  she  is  fighting  for  her  life.  She 
is  fighting  the  battle  on  behalf  of  European  civilization. 
Russia  is  non-European.  To  me  Germany  stands  for  the 
efficiency,  the  culture  and  the  manhood  of  the  white 
race  of  Continental  Europe.  Therefore,  as  between  Ger- 
many and  her  great  Eastern  neighbor  my  sympathies  are 
entirely  with  Germany. 

"I  sincerely  trust  and  hope  that  Great  Britain  will 
be  able  to  remain  neutral.  During  all  my  official  career 
my  intercourse  with  German  officials,  officers  and  people 
has  been  of  the  kindliest  nature.  And  I  can  conceive  no 
just  reasons  which  should  compel  the  British  Empire  to 
be  at  war  with  the  German  Empire.  The  two  peoples 
have  a  great  deal  in  common  and  should  have  admiration 
and  regard  for  each  other. 

"But  one  thing  is  clear.  The  German  Emperor 
throughout  his  reign  has  steadfastly  striven  for  peace. 
There  have  been  occasions  in  recent  years  when  Germany 
might  have  precipitated  the  conflict  with  every  prospect 
of  success.  If  her  ruler  had  not  desired  peace  above  war 
she  would  surely  have  chosen  those  more  favorable  occa- 
sions for  challenging  her  neighbors." 

England's  own  Wells,  in  a  burst  of  confidence,  wrote  before 
the  war: 

"We  in  Great  Britain  are  now  intensely  jealous  of  Germany, 
not  only  because  the  Germans  outnumber  us  *  *  *  but  be- 
cause in  the  last  hundred  years  while  we  have  fed  on  platitudes 
and  vanity  they  have  had  the  energy  and  humility  to  develop  a 
splendid  system  of  national  education,  to  toil  at  science  and  art 
and  literature,  to  develop  social  organization,  to  master  and 
better  our  methods  of  business  and  industry,  and  to  clamber 

55 


above  us  in  the  scale  of  civilization.     This  has  humiliated  and 

irritated  rather  than  chastened  us." 

Ex-President  Koosevelt  said  in  the  N.  Y.  Times: 

"The  Germans  are  not  merely  our  brothers ;  they  are 
largely  ourselves.  The  debt  we  owe  to  German  blood  is 
great;  the  debt  we  owe  to  German  thought  and  to  Ger- 
man example  not  only  in  governmental  administration 
but  in  all  the  practical  work  of  life,  is  even  greater. 
Every  generous  heart,  and  every  farseeing  mind  through- 
out the  world  should  rejoice  in  the  existence  of  a  stable, 
united  and  powerful  Germany,  too  strong  to  fear  aggres- 
sion and  too  just  to  be  a  source  of  fear  to  its  neighbors." 
Gabasino-Kenda,  an  Italian  writer  of  note,  in  analyzing  the 

present  war  writes  in  the  Italian  magazine,  Minerva,  among 

other  statements  all  favorable  to  Germany's  cause : 

"Public  opinion  in  Italy  has  been  deceived  as  to  the 
origin  of  this  savage  conflagration  and  the  conviction  has 
been  diffused  that  Germany  longed  for  this  war,  that 
Russia,  France  and  England  were  drawn  into  it  despite 
themselves.  The  truth  is  just  the  contrary,  and  this  is 
shown  quite  clearly  in  the  collection  of  diplomatic  docu- 
ments. ...  If  Servia  and  Belgium  had  never  ex- 
isted, the  three-fronted  attack  would  have  come  just  the 
same,  either  now,  or  next  year,  or  the  year  after  that." 

England  Cuts  Cable. 

Even  before  she  had  declared  war  on  Germany,  England  cut 
the  German  cables  to  America.  America  being  the  only  great 
neutral  power  and  the  nation  whose  respect,  good  will  and 
moral  support  was  eagerly  sought  by  all  the  belligerents  was 
thereby  cut  off  from  all  direct  cable  service  with  Berlin  and  the 
only  cabled  data  that  she  was  able  to  get  came  through  London 
and  Paris.  England  is  the  "cable  nation"  of  the  world.  Of 
the  545,000  kilometers  of  submarine  cable  now  laid  England 
controls  450,000,  Germany  did  control  34,000  before  her  line  to 

56 


America  was  cut  and  the  rest  of  us  control  the  comparatively 

negligible  balance.     We  are  a  "wireless  nation."     So,  too,  is 

Germany.  _ 

Censorship. 

Censorship  in  this  war  has  gone  leagues  beyond  the  extreme. 
Deletion  is  to  be  expected.  It  needs  no  military  acumen  for  any 
intelligent  person  to  at  once  see  that  for  strategic  reasons  even 
elimination  or  alteration  of  despatches  may  be  laudable.  But 
absolute  distortion  of  some  facts  and  complete  suppression  of 
others  have  been  the  star  features  of  Britain's  censorship  of  all 
war  news  that  has  reached  America  since  the  German  cables 
were  cut. 

Col.  Edwin  Emerson,  war  correspondent  of  the  N.  Y.  Worlds 
says:  "I  know  that  the  English  censor  suppressed  74  of  my 
German  victory  messages.  He  allowed  only  4  to  go  through 
and  one  of  them  he  turned  into  an  English  victory." 

It  is  not  only  an  English  or  a  French  attribute — it  is  human 
— to  distort  or  color  reports  when  the  truth  reflects  on  one's 
honor,  reputation  or  deeds.  Hence  all  European  war  new» 
items  of  the  war,  from  the  very  beginning  of  hostilities  up  to 
the  present  have  been  so  arbitrarily  censored  as  to  make  them 
not  only  improbable,  but  often  actually  infamous.  To  their 
discredit  be  it  said  that  many  American  newspapers  basing 
their  arguments  upon  these  crucially  censored  cabled  data 
developed  such  vehemently  anti-German  tendencies  as  to  make 
their  editorial  utterances  dangerous  because  of  their  likelihood 
to  incite  popular  anti-teutonic  uprisings  that  might  in  time 
seriously  jeopardize  American  neutrality. 

All  really  fair-minded  readers  must  concede  that  the  per- 
sistently anti-German  attitude  assumed  and  maintained  by 
most  of  the  great  metropolitan  dailies  has  done  more  to  distort 
the  facts  and  to  either  minimize  or  practically  ignore  every  bit 
of  news  that  was  favorable  to  Germany  and  thereby  embitter 
and  prejudice  the  general  American  public  against  Germany 
than  all  other  causes  combined.    This  is  to  be  deplored  because 

67 


it  is  as  unfair  to  Americans  as  it  is  to  Germans,  and  when  the 
facts  come  out,  as  they  will  after  the  war,  the  great  American 
public  will  then  learn  that,  for  reasons  unknown  to  them,  they 
were  persistently  misled  by  the  editorials  and  special  war 
articles  printed  during  the  war  by  these  great  American  mould- 
ers of  American  opinion. 

Cue  Debt  to  Germany. 

I  cannot  believe  that  the  great  American  public  has  so  soon 
forgotten  the  valiant  services  of  almost  190,000  Germans  in  the 
northern  ranks  during  our  own  Civil  War  nor  that  the  mem- 
ory of  Osterhaus,  Carl  Schurz,  Heinzelmann  and  the  immortal 
Sigel  has  so  quickly  dimmed.  Neither  will  I  admit  that  all 
of  us  Americans  wilfully  ignore  the  statistical  facts  that  more 
than  85%  of  the  Germans  and  less  than  15%  of  the  Englishmen 
who  live  in  America  are  naturalized  citizens  of  the  United 
States  of  America. 

It  cannot  be  successfully  proven  that  England  has  ever  been 
more  than  outwardly  friendly  to  America  since  we  proclaimed 
our  Declaration  of  Independence.  It  cannot  be  successfully 
denied  that  Germany  has  always  been  an  honest  friend  to 
America. 

What  short  memories  we  Americans  have.  From  the  outset 
of  hostilities  our  papers  came  out  boldly  against  Germany  and 
ever  since  many  of  our  most  powerful  dailies  are  simply  echoes 
of  the  big  London  dailies.  The  daily  hammering  against  Ger- 
many has  naturally  created  prejudice  in  the  minds  of  many 
Americans  against  the  German  cause  and  sympathy  for  Eng- 
land and  France.  But  which  of  the  three  has  been  our  best 
friend  in  the  past? 

It  was  Germany  that  sent  us  Baron  von  Steuben,  the  drill- 
master  of  our  revolutionary  army,  the  man  who  more  than  any 
other  enabled  our  weak  little  colonies  to  defeat  England. 

When  Lincoln,  during  our  Civil  War,  tried  to  sell  Union 
bonds  in  Europe,  both  England  and  France  refused ;  Gladstone 

58 


openly  assured  our  envoy  that  English  sympathy  was  entirely 
with  the  Confederacy.  But  note  the  contrast — Bismarck  told 
the  Berlin  and  Frankfort  bankers  to  buy  all  they  could  and  it 
was  German  money  that  helped  the  North  win. 

Who  helped  us  through  Secretary  Hay  to  establish  "the  open 
door  in  China?"  Germany,  only  Germany!  England  and  France 
came  in  half-heartedly  later  on. 

When,  as  inevitable,  Japan  will  encroach  upon  some  of  our 
Pacific  possessions,  who  will  help  her?  England  is  bound  by 
treaty  to  help  her  ally  Japan  just  as  Japan  is  now,  by  English 
command,  helping  England.  Who  in  that  event  can  help  us? 
Germany ! 

Who  then  has  been,  is  now,  and  will  be  our  staunch  friend 
in  Europe?  That  very  Germany  now  fighting  desperately  for 
her  very  existence  from  whom  in  this  unparalleled  emergency, 
we  are  withholding  our  sympathy  and  moral  support.  This  is 
indeed  a  sad  commentary  on  the  real  value  of  national  friend- 
ship. 

The  Tampico  Episode. 

None  of  us  has  forgotten  the  incident  at  Tampico. 
An  infuriated  Mexican  mob  was  harassing  a  number  of  non- 
combatant  American  refugees.  We  had  no  man-of-war  or  other 
military  force  there  to  protect  our  countrymen.  True  there 
were  English  men-of-war  in  the  harbor  but  they  offered  no  aid 
to  our  people.  Fortunately  the  German  cruiser  Dresden  was 
also  at  anchor  there.  Her  commander  when  informed  as  to 
what  was  going  on  on  shore,  gave  that  Mexican  mob  just  15 
minutes  in  which  to  stop  harassing  the  Americans  or  he  would 
sweep  the  town  with  enough  broadsides  to  emphasize  the  mean- 
ing of  his  demand.  That  mob  stopped  rioting  in  considerably 
less  than  the  alloted  15  minutes  and  the  Dresden's  commander 
then  transferred  all  of  these  American  refugees  aboard  his  ship 
so  as  to  insure  their  safety.  That  was  humanity.  That  was 
German  friendship  for  Americans. 

69 


The  Manila  Incident. 

Enemies  of  Germany  have  again  stirred  up  the  so-called 

Dewey-Diedrichs  Controversy  in  Manila  Harbor  to  prove  that 

Germany  at  that  time  tried  to  cause  trouble  with  the  United 

States.    From  a  letter  of  Admiral  Dewey  to  Admiral  von  Died- 

richs,  dated  April  16th,  1898,  I  quote: 

.     .     .     "I  rejoice  that  our  differences  have  been  of 

newspaper  manufacture.'' 

That  letter  is  self-explanatory — no  further  comments  are 

required.  4  ,     * 

^  Albion^s  American  Antipathy. 

In  morally  and  sentimentally  aligning  American  sympathy 
with  Great  Britain's  cause  not  all  thoughtful  Americans  will 
forget  that  England  did  her  utmost  to  further  the  disruption 
of  the  Union  and  that  our  own  Civil  War  would  not  have  taken 
four  long  bloody  years  to  have  settled  the  burning  questions — 
Slavery  and  Secession — had  not  England  very  materially  aided 
the  Confederacy  by  purchasing  their  bonds  and  in  other  ways 
supplying  British  gold,  thus  furnishing  "the  sinews  of  war" 
that  prolonged  the  conflict  and  postponed  the  birth  of  the  phrase 
"The  Lost  Cause."  Thousands  of  northern  and  southern 
widows  and  orphans  have  England  to  thank  for  their  bereave- 
ment, for  without  England's  financial  backing  that  fratricidal 
conflict  would  have  ended  quickly  because  of  lack  of  funds 
south  of  the  Mason  and  Dixon  Line. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  "there  is  not  a  man  living  now 
who  is  proud  of  having  been  a  defender  of  slavery."  The  great 
New  South,  while  justly  proud  of  her  "thin  line"  of  survivors 
of  the  boys  who  in  the  early  '60's  wore  the  grey,  is  just  as  loyal 
to  and  would  fight  just  as  quickly  for  the  Star  Spangled  Ban- 
ner as  any  other  section  of  our  great  Republic.  The  States  are 
now  United  by  bonds  that  are  mightier  than  steel. 

Two  Englands. 
I  have  elsewhere  shown  that  there  is  but  one  Germany. 

60 


But  there  are  two  Englands.  One  is  the  England  of  poets,  paint- 
ers, statesmen,  universities.  This  is  the  England  that  we  all 
admire  and  revere.  The  other  England  forced  on  us  the  war  of 
1812  and  burned  our  Washington ;  that  fitted  out  raiding  vessels 
to  prey  upon  our  commerce  during  our  Civil  War ;  the  England 
that  encourages  and  supports  Japan  to  reach  out  for  Pacific 

P  ^'  Panama  Canal, 

England's  quite  recent  contention  relative  to  the  way  we 
should  manage  the  business  department  of  our  great  inter- 
oceanic  artery — the  Panama  Canal — is  another  example  of  that 
brand  of  statecraft  where  the  emphasis  falls  on  the  last  syllable. 

Interference  With  Mail. 

Another  still  more  flagrant  instance  of  English  disregard 
of  the  rights  of  others  was  Britain's  interference  with  American 
transatlantic  mail  addressed  to  Germany.  In  view  of  the  inter- 
national agreement  not  to  disturb  the  despatch  of  postal  mat- 
ter when  carried  in  neutral  bottoms  her  interference  with  mails 
from  America  to  Germany  is  not  only  unwarranted  but  de- 
structive of  one  of  the  established  privileges  of  civilization. 

England  Paralyzes  Commerce. 

Disregarding  precedents  and  ignoring  international  agree- 
ments are  two  typically  British  traits.  Paralyzing  the  world's 
commerce,  because  being  the  Sea-Sovereign  she  has  the  power 
to  do  so,  is  of  no  moment  so  long  as  that  enables  Great  Britain 
to  carry  out  her  determination  not  only  to  crush  but  to  starve 
all  Germany — combatants  and  non-combatants  alike.  But 
England  probably  has  not  given  serious  thought  to  the  prob- 
ability that  if  she  succeeds  in  making  Germany  the  biggest 
^^concentration  camp"  on  record  she  will  thereby  subject  a  vast 
army  of  Britons,  French,  Kussians  and  Belgians,  up  to  this  time 
well  fed  and  cared  for  prisoners  of  war,  to  an  intimate  ac- 
quaintance with  that  Hunger  which  precedes  the  starvation 
which  is  the  end-result  of  England's  tactics  at  this  writing. 

61 


Harbor  ^^Hovering/' 

Of  our  government's  neutrality  in  the  present  war  there 
can  be  no  more  question  now  than  in  1870  at  the  outbreak  of 
the  Franco-Prussian  War.  Then,  as  now,  belligerents'  war- 
ships hovered  near  our  main  seaports  and  considerably  ham- 
pered our  maritime  trade.  Secretary  of  State  Fish  in  1870 
characterized  such  "hovering"  as  an  unfriendly  act  to  a  friend- 
ly, neutral  nation.  What  was  true  then  is  equally  true  now 
and  it  therefore  follows  that  the  Anglo-Franco- Japanese  espion- 
age of  our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  harbor  entrances  constitutes 
a  series  of  unfriendly  acts  besides  seriously  disturbing  our 

oceanic  business.    ^,     ^7  t       r,   -    ^ 

The  Venezuelan  Episode 

involving  the  territorial  integrity  of  Venezuela  and  the  definite 
settlement  of  the  dividing  line  between  British  Guiana  and 
Venezuela  was  a  long-drawn  out  effort  on  England's  part  to 
grab  about  33,000  square  miles  of  Venezuela  and  add  the  same 
to  British  Guiana.  As  a  last  resort  in  1895  Venezuela  appealed 
to  the  United  States  of  America  to  arbitrate  the  matter  for  her 
with  England.  Lord  Salisbury,  England's  then  Secretary  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  after  sneeringly  alluding  to  our  Monroe  Doc- 
trine refused  to  arbitrate  with  Mr.  Olney,  our  then  Secretary 
of  State.  Mr.  Olney's  reply  was  "arbitrate  or  fight" — us,  not 
Venezuela — ^and  Lord  Salisbury  arbitrated.  Since  then  our 
English  cousins  have  been  our  "sleeping  partner"  in  maintain- 
ing the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Japan  Joins  Britain. 

Not  content  with,  in  every  possible  way,  planning  to  realize 
on  her  slogan  "Crush  Germany"  England  on  the  flimsiest  pre- 
text imaginable  drags  into  the  European  catastrophe  "her  noble 
ally  Japan,"  and  thus  interjects  the  Asiatic  "yellow  peril"  into 
what  was  until  then — and  should  be  now — a  strictly  European 
quarrel. 

The  London  Foreign  Office  declared  that  Japan  had  come 

62 


into  the  contest  against  the  protest  of  England ;  but  the  Japan- 
ese statesman  Kato  declared  in  the  Japanese  parliament  that 
Japan  had  declared  war  against  Germany  at  the  request  of  the 
English  Government  and  that  Japan  was  duty  bound  by  her 
alliance  with  England  to  obey. 

Japan  had  no  reason  to  quarrel  with  Germany.  Quite  to 
the  contrary  she  acknowledges  her  great  indebtedness  to  Ger- 
many for  the  military  training  of  her  staff  officers  as  well  as 
for  much  valuable  teaching  of  her  young  men  in  scientific  and 
technical  institutions. 

Kiao-Chow  was  "easy  prey"  from  the  Japanese  viewpoint, 
but  it  was  by  no  means  an  easy  conquest.  The  N.  Y.  Evening 
Sun,  on  November  8th,  1914,  paid  this  tribute  to  the  German 
defenders : 

"It  is  difficult  to  exaggerate  the  moral  value  of  Kiao- 
Chow  defense.  British  statesmen  and  journals  have  de- 
lighted to  tell  the  world  that  Great  Britain  is  making 
war  to  save  the  German  people  from  militarism,  to  bring 
independence  to  the  oppressed  Teutons.  Was  there  ever 
a  more  complete,  a  more  crushing  answer  to  such  cant 
than  that  supplied  by  Kiao-Chow,  by  the  response  of  the 
Germans  of  the  East  to  a  call  not  to  battle  but  to  disas- 
ter, to  a  summons  not  to  possible  victory  but  to  inevit- 
able defeat  and  destruction?" 

Congressman  Fred  A.  Britten,  in  discussing  his  Resolution 
introduced  in  the  House,  directing  the  Secretary  of  State  to 
advise  the  Japanese  government  that  the  United  States  views 
with  concern  Japan's  ultimatum  to  Germany,  said : 

"The  taking  of  Kiao-Chow  is  merely  a  prelude  to  the 
taking  of  all  Germany's  islands  which  extend  half-way 
across  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  this  I  view  as  a  distinct 
menace  to  our  possessions  in  the  Philippine  Islands, 
Guam  and  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

63 


"This  action  of  Japan  is  the  least  defensible  move 
yet  made  in  connection  with  the  European  war." 

Japan  will  not  voluntarily  surrender  Kiao-Chow  to  China 
— she  will  try  to  keep  it  as  well  as  the  group  of  German  Islands 
in  the  Pacific — Ladrone,  Marian  and  Caroline — recently  seized 
by  Japan,  although  definite  assurances  have  been  given  to  the 
United  States  by  Japan  and  by  Great  Britain  on  behalf  of 
Japan  that  these  islands  would  only  be  held  by  Japan  during 
the  war.  If  Japan  intends  to  live  up  to  her  promises  why  does 
she  send  thousands  of  emigrants  to  these  islands,  as  reported 
by  the  press? 

Not  only  has  Japan  been  a  loyal  ally  to  England  in  conquer- 
ing Kiao-Chow,  but  she  has  agreed  to  aid  England  in  subduing 
any  rebellious  outbreaks  that  might  occur  in  any  of  her  Far 
East  colonies  and  locating  and  chasing  the  German  sea-raiders. 

After  the  English  troops  had  failed  to  quell  the  mutiny  of 
the  Fifth  Bengal  Infantry  Regiment  at  Singapore,  the  Japanese 
warships  stationed  there  landed  troops  and  occupied  the  bar- 
racks of  the  Indian  troops.  It  appears  that  the  mutiny  was  not 
confined  to  the  soldiers.  According  to  Russian  papers  800 
Hindus  destroyed  all  the  buildings  in  which  German  non-com- 
batant civilians  were  confined  so  as  to  liberate  them.  The 
mutineers  also  prevented  the  troops  of  the  Sultan  of  Johore 
from  coming  to  the  assistance  of  the  English. 

At  Simla,  India,  10,000  tribesmen  revolted  against  English 
domination  and  were  not  again  under  even  temporary  control 
until  the  English  troops  had  killed  about  200  and  wounded 
about  300  more  of  them. 

I  mention  these  instances  to  prove  that  there  is  a  strong 
under-current  of  intense  resentment  among  the  people  of  the 
Far  East  who  "exist" — they  do  not  "live" — under  the  British 
Yoke. 

At  the  Falkland  Island  battle  the  British  fleet,  being  un- 
able to  defeat  the  German  squadron,  the  British  signalled  to 

64 


the  Japanese  warships  for  help.  The  latter  gave  efficient  aid  to 
the  British  men-of-war  and  just  as  the  tide  of  battle  turned 
against  the  greatly  outnumbered  Germans,  the  English  asked 
the  Japanese  to  withdraw  and  the  English  finished  the  job. 
Official  Japanese  documents  establish  the  truth  of  this  state- 
ment and  also  voice  an  illy  concealed  resentment  at  being  thus 
deprived  of  their  deserved  share  in  this  victory.  Comment  is 
superfluous.    Conclusions  will  at  once  be  self-suggestive. 

Quite  recent  developments  prove  Japan's  ambition.  She 
aims  first  of  all  to  drive  the  white  man  from  the  Far  East.  An 
even  more  ambitious  scheme  is  to  quickly  develop  from  an  in- 
sular Power  into  a  continental  Empire  and  China  will  be  her 
victim.  Japan  aims  to  be  China's  dictator  and  England  does 
not  protest,  neither  does  France.  Japan  aspires  to  absorb  the 
great  Chinese  Empire  and  when  she  reaches  that  goal  she  will 
slam  the  door  in  the  face  of  other  nations.  The  "open  door" 
will  be  locked  and  sealed  by  the  Mikado. 

Perhaps  the  words  of  the  Japanese  diplomat  in  the  early 
days  of  the  war  are  prophetic.  He  said:  "In  twenty  or  forty 
years  Indo-China  like  a  ripe  fruit,  will  fall  into  Japan's  lap 
anyway.  France's  power  in  Indo-China  is  entirely  imaginary.'* 
The  pungency  of  that  last  remark  is  appreciated  when  one  re- 
calls that  French  Indo-China  has  about  525,000  square  miles 
and  about  30  million  inhabitants. 

No  matter  which  side  wins  in  this  great  war,  Japan  will 
be  the  Shylock  and  she  will  not  only  demand  her  "pound  of 
flesh,"  but  she  will  get  it. 

What  this  may  yet  mean  to  America  none  but  the  Japanese 
probably  know.  That  Japan  covets  the  Philippines  is  only  too 
evident.  They  regard  the  Pacific  as  their  sea.  But  whatever 
Japan  may  do  it  is  safe  to  say  in  advance  it  will  not  be  without 
the  full  knowledge,  consent  and  moral  co-operation  of  Great 
Britain. 

Albert  F.  Nathan,  sent  as  a  special  investigator  by  the  Los 

65 


Angeles  Times,  reports  in  that  paper  under  date  of  April  14thy 
1915: 

*^4,0'00  Japanese  marines  and  sailors,  five  Japanese  warships, 
six  colliers  and  supply  ships,  and  the  English  colliers  Lena 
and  Protesilaus  of  Liverpool  are  occupying  Turtle  Bay,  Lower 
California,  Mexico,  just  409  miles  from  San  Diego.  I  saw  them 
there  a  week  ago.  With  the  harbor  mined,  a  camp  on  shore  and 
patrol  boats  for  miles  out  at  sea,  the  Japanese  were  busy  mark- 
ing out  moorings  for  ships,  sending  cutters  filled  with  armed 
men  ashore  and  landing  ammunition.  Half  of  the  Japanese 
Navy  could  anchor  in  Turtle  Bay.  *  *  *  According  to 
Capt.  Whitelaw  of  the  wrecking  ship  Greenwood  then  in  the 
bay,  the  Japanese  Cruiser  Asama,  which  has  had  her  nose  in  a 
soft  mud-bank  near  the  harbor's  entrance  since  December  31st, 
1914,  could  be  pulled  clear  of  the  mud  in  a  few  hours  by  a  good 
tugboat.  ♦  *  *  Lieut.  Tomosada  of  the  Japanese  Navy 
told  me  that  the  Asama  was  ^in  a  bad  way  and  that  the  whole 
fleet  would  have  to  stay  with  her  until  a  transport  with  more 
men  and  large  cranes  would  come  from  Japan.'  This  trans- 
port never  comes  but  warships  and  armed  men  continue  to 
appear  and  settle  down.*  *  *  Unhindered  by  our  Govern- 
ment the  Japanese  have  gained  a  foothold  on  the  west  coast 
of  Lower  California  that  will  be  hard  to  shake  off.  Turtle  Bay 
today  would  be  a  hard  place  for  the  American  warships  to  enter 
if  the  Japanese  wished  to  keep  them  out." 

War  is 


Sherman  at  Atlanta  said — "War  is  cruelty  and  cannot  be 
refined."  General  Phil.  Sheridan  said:  "You  must  leave  the 
people  through  whose  land  you  march  only  their  eyes  to  weep 
with."  The  new  British  Sea-Lord,  Lord  Fisher,  at  the  1899 
Hague  Conference  said :  "War  should  be  made  as  hellish  as  pos- 
sible." Some  unnecessary  and  therefore  unwarranted  cruelty 
has  always  occurred  in  every  war  in  history.  In  our  war  of 
1812  England  paid  the  Indian   savages   to    commit  the  most 

66 


shocking  barbarities.  During  one  engagement  Greneral  Win- 
chester of  the  American  army  was  captured  by  the  British  under 
Col.  Proctor.  Five  hundred  young  Americans,  chiefly  Kentuck- 
ians,  were  forced  to  surrender  and  lay  down  their  arms.  Proctor 
assured  them  that  in  return  for  their  surrender  he  would  guar- 
antee the  safety  of  their  American  frontier  compatriots.  But 
when  they  were  unarmed,  Proctor  let  loose  a  horde  of  Indians 
and  the  500  Americans  were  brained  by  the  Indians'  toma- 
hawks. President  Madison  in  his  message  to  Congress,  re- 
ferred to  England's  warfare  against  us  as  "distinguished  by 
features  peculiarly  shocking  to  humanity." 

England  so  brutally  crushed  the  Boer  republic  that  the 
Boers  were  finally  forced  to  surrender  to  avoid  total  extermina- 
tion. England  fought  the  men  and  imprisoned  the  women  and 
children.  The  Boer  monument  at  Bloemfontain  unveiled 
in  1913  is  inscribed,  "In  memory  of  the  26,663  women  and 
children  who  died  during  the  war  of  1900-1902  in  the  English 
concentration  camps." 

The  same  Winston  Churchill  who  is  now  Lord  of  the  Ad- 
miralty then  said  in  the  London  Post:  "There  is  one  way  to 
overcome  the  resistance  of  the  Boers,  and  that  is  by  a  pro- 
longed process  of  attrition.  In  other  words,  we  must  kill  them 
out  so  as  to  teach  their  children  to  love  us." 

The  same  General  French,  now  in  command  of  England's 
troops  on  the  continent,  sent  Zulus  to  fight  the  Boers  and  pil- 
lage their  country  and  for  this  breach  of  the  usages  of  civilized 
warfare  was  "shifted"  from  his  command  because  of  the  violent 
protests  of  the  Natal  government. 

The  same  Kitchener,  now  a  British  hero,  then  had  54,526 
children  and  38,022  Boer  women  under  his  "tender"  care.  The 
London  Daily  Netcs  said  of  this  on  November  9th,  1901 :  "There 
is  nothing  to  match  it  even  in  the  mortality  figures  of  the  Indian 
famines,  where  cholera  and  other  epidemics  have  to  be  con- 

67 


tended  with."    And  this   of   England   "the   protector   of    the 
weak,"  the  self -praised  Moral  Dictator  of  the  Universe! 

The  Boer  general,  de  Wet,  speaking  of  the  destruction  of 
Louvain  by  the  Grermans,  called  attention  to  the  terrible  and 
unwarranted  destruction  of  the  Boer  country  by  the  English, 
and  said  "Every  Boer  village  was  a  small  Louvain." 

Allies''  Atrocities. 

This  war  will  justly  be  chronicled  as  the  most  atrocious 
ever  waged  by  civilized  people.  Atrocities,  to  be  expected  only 
of  savages  of  the  lowest  mentality  and  most  bloodthirsty  nature, 
have  been  perpetrated  and  are  credibly  vouched  for.  A  few 
excerpts  from  a  mass  of  authentic  data  will  suffice  as  blood- 
curdling illustrations — also  contrasts. 

The  world  at  large  sympathizes  with  Belgium  in  her  days 
of  sorrow  and  distress.  That  is  both  human  and  humane. 
While  it  is  self-evident  that  it  is  human  to  err,  it  is  also  true 
that  "it  is  human  to  forget."  In  the  case  of  Belgium  in  the 
Congo,  the  inhuman  cruelties  perpetrated  on  children  for  their 
parents'  failure  or  inability  to  bring  in  the  quantity  of  rub- 
ber demanded  by  the  Belgian  overseers  are  too  well  established 
by  facts  to  be  denied  now  by  even  the  most  altruistic  sympathiz- 
ers with  that  brave  little  nation.  But  not  all  students  of  his- 
tory have  forgotten  the  unspeakable  outrages  then  inflicted 
upon  the  helpless  Congo  people  nor  the  starvation  of  non-com- 
batants in  the  horribly  unsanitary  concentration  camps  estab- 
lished and  maintained  by  Belgium  in  the  Congo  country. 

In  all  wars  there  have  been  some  sporadic  cases  of  atrocious 
inhumanity.  Fiends  are  not  confined  to  the  armies  and  navies 
of  the  world.  They  are  not  infrequently  found  in  all  grades  of 
society  in  private  life  and  during  peace.  There  is  a  degree  of 
degeneracy  that  is  normal  in  some  men  under  the  most  favor- 
able circumstances.  Such  men,  under  the  excitement  of  war, 
become  the  ravishers,  the  blood-thirsty  brutes  and  the  perpetra- 
tors of  unspeakable  outrages  on  women,  children  and  other  men. 

68 


From  the  viewpoint  of  the  "invaded,"  the  "invader"  is  al- 
ways "atrocious." 

But  for  the  persistent  propaganda  of  the  Allies  I  would  not 
devote  so  much  space  to  these  "atrocities." 

The  sensational  tales  that  are  so  persistently  reiterated  by 
the  Allies  and  through  them  by  the  Allied  Press  are  doing  an 
incalculable  amount  of  lasting  harm  by  poisoning  the  minds  of 
people  here  as  well  as  abroad  and  thus  fomenting  a  hatred  of 
Germany  that  is  infamously  unfair  to  Germany  and  also  unfair 
to  those  whose  minds  are  in  that  way  poisoned. 

It  is  only  after  the  Facts  have  been  sifted  from  the  False- 
hoods through  the  unbiased  and  unbribable  Sieve  of  Truth  that 
the  actual  atrocities  stand  out  undeniably.  The  impartial  his- 
tory of  this  unparalleled  war  will  throw  the  searchlight  of  calm, 
unimpassioned  analysis  on  the  tangled  mass  of  "tales  of  atro- 
cities" now  burdening  current  newspaperdom  and  then  we 
shall  know  the  truth. 

The  following  incident  occurred  at  Antwerp  right  after  war 
was  declared  and  is  vouched  for  by  three  reputable  men.  "Even 
German  women  in  childbed  were  dragged  by  the  hair  from 
their  beds,  inhumanly  beaten  with  canes  and  chased  down- 
stairs. A  German,  his  wife  and  two  children,  all  scantily 
dressed,  were  attacked  by  a  Belgian  mob.  The  wife,  semi- 
conscious in  her  husband's  arms,  was  stabbed  to  death,  as  were 
both  children.  I  saw  two  children — about  three  and  six  years 
old — flung  from  a  fourth  story  window,  their  little  bodies  being 
shattered  on  the  pavement."  Prince  Henry  of  Reuss,  on 
August  15th,  writing  to  Count  von  Bernstorff,  the  German 
Ambassador  to  America,  said  in  part — "German  guards  are 
treacherously  killed  by  peasants  and  even  women  of  the  lower 
classes  gouge  out  the  eyes  of  wounded  German  soldiers,  cut 
out  the  tongues,  cut  off  the  limbs  and  murder  the  wounded 
lying  on  stretchers  ready  to  be  taken  to  field  hospitals." 

It  is  an  authentic  fact  that  600  German  Army  surgeons 
were  killed  by  Belgian  non-combatants  while  attending  wound- 

69 


ed  soldiers;  also  that  Belgian  officials  entertained  German 
officers  at  dinner  and  after  the  coffee  and  cigars  murdered 
their  guests  while  yet  at  the  table.  What  a  commentary  on 
Belgian  hospitality! 

Russian  Ravages, 

In  East  Prussia,  the  Cossacks  are  committing  most  das- 
tardly cruelties.  They  ravish  and  then  cut  off  the  breasts  of 
women  and  impale  the  children  on  the  fences.  Forty  thousand 
civilians  are  missing  in  these  districts  of  East  Prussia — they 
were  murdered  by  the  Russian  troops.  The  Russians  them- 
selves have  acknowledged  that  prior  to  their  crushing  defeat  by 
von  Hindenburg  their  troops  laid  waste  that  section  of  East 
Prussia  where  they  had  gained  a  temporary  foothold.  At 
Goldap  they  did  not  leave  a  house,  store,  hospital  or  church 
standing.    Lyck  was  also  annihilated. 

Sadoveanu,  the  well  known  writer,  publisher  in  the  Bucha- 
rest "Universul,"  a  paper  friendly  to  Russia,  a  description  of 
cruelties  committed  by  the  Russian  soldiers  upon  the  peace- 
loving  inhabitants  of  Bukowina,  a  province  of  Austria.  He 
lives  close  to  the  border  of  this  country,  and  has  actually  seen 
the  terrible  misery  of  the  refugees.  He  tells  how  the  Cossacks 
burned  all  the  houses,  impaled  the  men  and  ravished  the  women 
and  girls.  He  saw  many  men  and  boys  with  their  noses,  ears 
and  hands  chopped  off. 

Hordes  of  Russian  militia  recently  crossed  the  German 
border  at  the  most  extreme  northeastern  corner  of  East  Prussia 
burning  villages  and  estates,  pillaging  and  murdering.  This 
expedition  can  have  no  military  value  whatever.  It  is  merely 
a  case  of  vandalism. 

The  Austro-Hungarian  Embassy  at  Washington  made  pub- 
lic a  statement  on  March  10th,  which  briefly  stated  is  that  ^the 
Russian  commander  had  notified  the  Austrian  commander  near 
Nadwornia,  Galicia,  that  on  the  following  day  he  would  send  to 
the   Austrian    troops    about    1,500    Jewish  families,  then  as- 

70 


sembled  near  Namiona  and  Tysmienczany.  These  Jews  had 
been  driven  from  their  homes  by  the  Russians.  As  this  proposal 
was  both  to  get  rid  of  the  poor  people  they  had  robbed  and  also 
to  use  them  as  a  living  "flag  of  truce^'  so  as  to  approach  the 
Austrian  lines  without  being  attacked,  the  Austrian  comman- 
der promptly  and  properly  refused  to  permit  the  Czar's  officer 
to  thus  perpetrate  one  of  the  most  dastardly  crimes  against  in- 
nocent non-combatants  on  record!  Russia  deserves,  for  this 
cowardly  attempt,  to  be  stigmatized  by  the  whole  world.' 

Edward  Lyell  Fox,  a  neutral  correspondent  who  was  with 
Gen.  von  Hindenburg's  army  in  East  Prussia,  took  and  has 
published  many  photographs  of  wrecked  hospitals,  sacked 
homes,  destroyed  Red  Cross  supplies,  and  of  gross  outrages  on 
defenseless  women  and  children. 

Here  are  two  vouched-for  pictures  of  REAL  conditions. 

First  look  on  this — Cossacks  with  pocketsful  of  jewelled 
fingers  and  hands  cut  from  women  and  children  in  East  Prus- 
sia. "We  leave  no  one  behind  who  will  be  a  soldier''  was  the 
Cossack  war  cry. 

And  now  look  on  this — Thousands  of  packages  in  Berlin 
containing  coins,  crosses,  etc.,  taken  from  Russians  and  French 
killed  in  battle,  and  a  corps  of  German  officials  whose  sole  duty 
it  is  to  locate,  if  possible,  the  families  of  these  dead  soldiers 
so  as  to  return  to  them  the  carefully  collected  personal  belong- 
ings of  their  dead.  (See  article  in  Saturday  Evening  Post, 
April  17th,  1915,  by  Ernest  Poole).  Could  a  stronger  contrast 
be  conceived?  On  one  side  Barbarity — on  the  other  Human- 
ity. 

The  Turcos'  Triumph. 

Count  Karolyi  saw  Turcos — the  Algerian  French  fighters — 

with  necklaces  of  ears,  noses  and  fingers.     What  a  credit  to 

France  I 

Dum  Bum  Bullets. 

On  the  other  hand,  how  can  any  fair-minded  American  ig- 
nore the  Kaiser's  protest  to  our  President  against  the  use  of 

71 


dum  dum  bullets  by  the  Allies,  projectiles  prohibited  by  inter- 
national law.  They  were  in  possession  of  French  soldiers  who 
were  made  prisoners.  These  bullets  had  also  been  supplied  to 
the  English  troops  as  proven  by  affidavits  of  Col.  W.  E.  Gor- 
don and  Lt.  Col.  Neith  of  the  Gordon  Highlanders.  At  Schirmek, 
Montedy  and  Longwy  large  quantities  of  these  bullets  were 
found  in  original  cases  and  at  the  latter  place  a  mechanical 
contrivance  for  the  manufacture  of  these  bullets  was  discovered. 

French  Brutality. 

N.  Y.  Herald,  October  14,  1914,  publishes  the  following  let- 
ter of  "A  Neutral  American"  : 

"The  argument  used  by  the  French  Embassy  to  dis- 
credit the  German  accusation  of  the  use  of  dum  dum 
bullets  by  French  soldiers,  that  the  kind  of  men  who 
risked  their  lives  to  save  the  German  wounded  har- 
bored in  the  Rheims  cathedral,  set  on  fire  by  German 
shells,  *are  unlikely  to  commit  atrocities,'  is  a  dum  dum 
argument  that  tears  their  stand  to  bits,  for,  according 
to  the  statement  of  the  Abb6  Cammae,  French  priest, 
these  ^brave'  French  soldiers,  backed  by  an  excited  mob 
of  civilians,  not  only  did  not  raise  a  hand  to  help  in  the 
rescue  but  met  the  pitiful  struggling  band,  led  by  the 
brave  priest,  those  wounded  in  the  arm  or  leg  carrying 
the  helpless  as  best  they  could,  with  levelled  guns  trying 
to  drive  them  back  to  die  in  the  flames." 
Maurice  Barres,  French  writer,  in  "Echo  de  Paris,"  says 
that  8,000  Alsace-Lorraine  non-combatant  citizens  have  been 
taken  to  France  as  hostages  and  are  kept  in  unsanitary  build- 
ings and  practically  without  proper  food  and  warm  clothing. 

Germany  Protests  to  France, 

The  German  government  sent  a  protest  to  France  ac- 
companied by  fifteen  affidavits  from  soldiers,  physicians  and 
Catholic  priests  regarding  violation  of  the  rules  of  the  Geneva 

72 


convention.  It  was  claimed  "that  the  French  have  killed  or 
mutilated  wounded  German  soldiers,  fired  on  ambulances  with 
wounded  and  bearing  the  Red  Cross  flag,  invaded  German  hos- 
pitals, robbed  the  hospital  staff  and  stole  the  equipment,  fired 
on  German  physicians  who  were  attending  to  the  wounded, 
killing  many  and  taking  others  captives,  etc.,  etc." 

Concentration  Camps, 

Those  triple  barbed  wire  enclosures  within  easy  auto  dis- 
tance from  Trafalgar  Square,  overcrowded  with  under-fed,  half- 
clad  civilians  whose  only  "crime"  is  that  they  are  Germans,  are 
an  infamous  blot  on  modern  civilization.  Men  of  all  walks  in 
life  are  imprisoned  there  and  subjected  to  almost  incredible 
hardships  and  indignities.  Russia's  mistreatment  of  some 
150,000  German  non-combatant  civilians  is  credibly  reported  to 
be  inhuman.  Among  these  unfortunate  Germans  are  bank 
presidents,  factory  owners,  merchants,  professional  men  and 
others  of  means  and  social  prominence.  All  are  treated  like 
criminals,  their  money  is  taken  away  and  each  is  "allowed"  each 
day  a  munificent  sum  equivalent  to  eight  cents  in  our  money 
with  which  to  buy  food.  Germany  has  asked  the  American 
Consuls  to  look  after  these  people  but  apparently  they  are 
powerless  to  help.  Such  inhumanity  in  England  and  Russia 
is  a  fitting  corollary  to  the  concentration  camps  during  the 
Boer  War  and  a  vivid  reminder  of  Siberia. 

Now  by  contrast  let  us  see  how  Germany  handles  similar 
problems.  French  soldiers  in  German  Army  Hospitals  are 
voluble  in  their  thanks  for  kind,  skillful  medical  and  surgical 
treatment.  Prisoners  of  war  are  fed  as  well  and  as  liberally 
as  are  her  own  soldiers.  The  German  concentration  camps, 
established  only  after  England  ignored  Germany's  request  to 
change  their  tactics  towards  German  civilians,  are  sanitary 
and  those  detained  therein  are  treated  humanely  as  is  proven 
by  the  evidence  of  oflficial  visitors  authorized  to  inspect  and 
report.     And  yet  Germans  are  denounced  as  "Barbarians!" 

73 


To  which  nation  does  that  name  most  accurately  apply?  Think 
it  over. 

Antwerp  Appreciates  England^s  Aid. 

One  of  the  most  inexplicable  cases  of  misdirected  energy 
ever  recorded  is  shown  by  the  following  authentic  incident. 
After  Antwerp  was  ready  to  surrender,  because  there  was  no 
other  alternative,  the  English  troops  played  havoc  with  her 
buildings  and  destroyed  enormous  stocks  of  merchandise  and 
a  claim  for  damages  to  the  extent  of  $46,000,000  has  been  filed 
against  England  by  the  merchants  of  Antwerp. 

German  Atrocities. 

Besides  so  distorting  facts  as  to  make  the  real  truth  about 
everything  pertaining  to  the  origin,  the  responsibility  and 
preparation  for,  as  well  as  the  daily  progress  of  the  war  un- 
recognizable to  Americans,  the  Anglo-Franco-Russian  combine 
has  persistently  burdened  the  cables  with  the  most  infamous 
misrepresentations  and  the  most  highly  colored  tales  of  "Ger- 
man Atrocities." 

Bombs  from  Aircraft. 

Germany  has  been  severely  criticised  for  the  dropping  of 
bombs  by  German  aviators  in  Antwerp,  and  other  fortified 
towns.  Nothing  has  been  made  of  the  dropping  of  bombs 
by  French  aviators  in  the  open,  unfortified  towns  of  Nurem- 
berg, Freiburg,  (Breisgau),  Dtisseldorf,  Dortmund,  Mtill- 
heim  and  others,  international  law  and  the  methods  of 
warfare  among  civilized  nations  to  the  contrary,  notwithstand- 
ing. 

When  Germany  gave  the  English  sea-coast  towns  of  Hartle- 
pool, Whitby  and  Scarborough  a  "surprise  party' ^  Winston 
Churchill  at  once  called  the  Germans  "baby-killers''  and  the 
world  was  solemnly  assured  that  these  were  unfortified  towns 
and  that  this  was  another  proof  of  "German  Barbarity."  While 
we  all  regret  that  a  single  non-combatant  life  was  lost  as  a  re- 

74 


suit  of  this  raid,  it  is  not  true  that  these  were  or  are  unfortified 
towns.  The  contrary  is  proven  by  the  indisputable  evidence  of 
the  official  records  of  Great  Britain,  evidence  that  must  con- 
vince everyone  that  Germany  was  strictly  within  her  rights  as 
a  belligerent  when  she  attacked  them.  Hartlepool  in  the  British 
Monthly  Army  List  is  designated  as  a  "coast  defense  town." 
Whitby  in  the  official  British  Monthly  Naval  List  is  recorded 
as  a  "coast  guard  town."  Scarborough  according  to  the  same 
official  record  has  a  battery  of  15-inch  guns,  military  barracks 
and  a  wireless  station. 

Is  it  not  strange  that  while  so  much  adverse  criticism  has 
been  hurled  at  Germany  for  the  raid  on  these  towns  that  almost 
nothing,  other  than  that  written  in  and  by  Germany,  has  been 
said  about  the  air-craft  attacks  of  the  Allies  on  German  un- 
fortified towns  where  civilians  have  perished  from  the  bombs 
dropped  by  the  Allies?  Apparently  it  is  British  logic  to  regard 
"killing  German  babies"  as  "a  legitimate  warfare,"  but  it  is 
"barbarous"  when  innocent  British  lives  are  lost.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  in  both  cases — in  all  cases — it  is  war  as  Sherman  epito- 
mized it. 

Rheims  Cathedral. 

Much  has  been  said  and  written  about  the  comparatively 
slight  damage  done  by  the  German  artillery  to  the  Great  Ca- 
thedral at  Rheims.  The  German  commander  claims  that  the 
greatest  care  had  been  exercised  to  spare  that  beautiful  struc- 
ture and  only  after  the  French  military  authorities  at  Rheims 
had  refused  to  accept  the  German  offer — made  under  a  flag  of 
truce — to  spare  the  Cathedral  provided  the  French  desisted 
from  the  use  of  the  towers  of  the  Cathedral  as  an  observation 
post  and  directing  the  fire  of  the  French  artillery  from  these 
towers,  a  warning  shot  was  sent  at  the  tower  of  the  church.  The 
German  generaPs  contention  is  confirmed  by  the  Vicar-General 
of  Rheims,  who  admits  that  the  towers  of  the  Cathedral  were 
used  as  an  observation  station  for  military  purposes  during  the 
bombardment. 

75 


The  Kheims  Cathedral  has  not  been  seriously  injured  by 
the  German  artillery.  The  greatest  damage  to  it  was  caused 
by  fire.  The  London  Times  on  September  25,  1914,  said :  "One 
reason  why  the  Cathedral  caught  alight  so  quickly  was  that  on 
one  side  of  it  was  some  scaffolding  which  had  been  erected  for 
restoration  work.  Straw  had  also  been  laid  on  the  floor  for  the 
reception  of  Grerman  wounded.'^ 

Is  it  at  all  credible  that  if  Germany  had  really  "bombarded" 
the  Cathedral  and  been  guilty  of  "vandalism"  as  charged  by  the 
Allies,  there  would  be  anything  left  of  the  building  standing 
above  its  foundations?  There  are  not  two  grades  of  gunner- 
ship  in  the  German  army  and  the  marksmen  who  without  much 
difficulty  pounded  their  way  through  Liege  and  Namur  could 
have  annihilated  the  Cathedral  much  more  easily  and  quickly. 
That  they  did  not  do  it  is  a  fact.  No  wonder  that  Spain — no 
doubt  recalling  French  destruction  of  Spanish  works  of  art  in 
other  years — refused  to  ^'protest  against  Germany's  vandalism 
at  Kheims"  as  she  was  requested  to  do  by  France. 

The  universally  accepted  history  of  the  German  Empire  as 
well  as  of  Prussia  and  other  German  states,  before  and  after 
the  establishment  of  the  Empire,  absolutely  proves  that  the 
Germans  have  never  desecrated  church  property.  Only  in  a 
few  instances,  and  those  of  great  emergency,  have  they  used 
churches  as  temporary  hospitals.  Germany  has  always  re- 
spected, and  wherever  possible  protected  from  harm  all 
churches  and  church  property.     That  is  History. 

That  the  contrary  is  true  of  France  is  equally  historic. 
French  records  absolutely  prove  that  French  soldiers  have  not 
infrequently  burned  Church  property  and  the  French  govern- 
ment, after  confiscating  the  church  properties,  has  leased  them 
to  theatrical  men  for  playhouses,  vaudeville  theatres,  moving 
picture  houses,  etc.  If  this  has  been  done  in  times  of  Peace 
what  can  we  expect  from  them  in  times  of  War?  With  that 
as  a  precedent,  France  did  not  hesitate  to  use  the  Rheims 
Cathedral  for  military  purposes. 

76 


The  German  Bayonet, 

One  of  the  most  infamous  calumnies  charged  against  Ger- 
many is  that  her  infantry  is  armed  with  bayonets  having  a  saw- 
edge  from  point  to  hilt  so  as  to  make  a  ragged  wound  of  great 
severity.  The  truth  is  that  in  each  company  a  few  non-com- 
missioned officers  carry  bayonets  on  which,  from  the  hilt  end 
and  extending  about  three  or  four  inches  from  the  hilt  several 
saw  teeth  have  been  filed  to  be  used  solely  for  sawing  pieces  of 
wood  for  building  camp  fires.  The  entire  bayonet  is  never 
converted  into  a  saw-edged  weapon. 

These  lurid  tales  of  "German  atrocities''  emanate  from  the 
pens  of  men  seated  at  desks  in  the  editorial  offices  of  the  Lon- 
don and  Paris  newspapers. 

Asphyxiating  Gases. 

Early  in  the  War  France  used  explosives  that  produced 
these  gases.  It  created  only  slight  comment  among  American 
newspaper  men.  The  German  war  office  has  officially  called 
attention  to  the  use  of  these  gases  not  less  than  five  or  six  times 
during  the  last  weeks.  It  is  a  matter  of  record  that  materials 
which  can  be  used  only  for  the  production  of  these  gases  are 
shipped  from  the  United  States  to  the  Allies.  If  it  be  a  fact 
that  Germany  has  now  followed  the  example  set  by  the  Allies 
and  is  employing  similar  methods,  why  so  bitterly  denounce 
Germany  and  practically  ignore  identical  tactics  employed  by 
the  Allies? 

American  Journalists^  Statement. 

Compare  these  hysterical  outbursts  of  frenzied  fiction  with 
the  calm  convincing  statements  made  by  wireless  (the  cable 
censor  at  London  had  no  chance  to  suppress  it  or  blue-pencil  it 
out  of  all  resemblance  to  the  original)  to  America  by  five  well 
known,  reputable,  veracious,  reliable  American  newspaper  men. 
These  five  authorized  American  correspondents,  keen-witted, 
trained  interviewers,  careful  observers  and  accurate  analyzers 

77 


of  facts  and  rumors,  were  in  Belgium  for  two  weeks  with  the 
German  army  and  during  that  time  travelled  slowly  through 
the  very  territory  where  many  of  the  most  horrible  of  these 
"atrocities"  were  claimed  to  have  been  perpetrated  by  the  Ger- 
man troops. 

They  make  the  following  statement: 

"After  spending  two  weeks  with  and  accompanying 
the  troops  upward  of  100  miles,  we  are  unable  to  report 
a  single  instance  unprovoked.  We  are  also  unable  to  con- 
firm rumors  of  mistreatment  of  prisoners  or  of  non- 
combatants  with  the  German  columns.  This  is  true  of 
Lou  vain,  Brussels,  Luneville  and  Nantes  while  in  Prus- 
sian hands. 

"We  visited  Chateau  Soldre,  Sambre  and  Beaumont 
without  substantiating  a  single  wanton  brutality.  Nu- 
merous investigated  rumors  proved  groundless.  Every- 
where we  have  seen  Germans  paying  for  purchases  and 
respecting  property  rights,  as  well  as  according  civilians 
every  consideration. 

"After  the  battle  of  Biass  (probably  Barse,  a  suburb 
of  Namur),  we  found  Belgian  women  and  children  mov- 
ing comfortably  about.  The  day  after  the  Germans  had 
captured  the  town  in  Merbes  Chateau,  we  found  one 
citizen  killed,  but  were  unable  to  confirm  lack  of  provo- 
cation. 

"Kefugees  with  stories  of  atrocities  were  unable  to 
supply  direct  evidence.  Belgians  in  the  Sambre  Valley 
discounted  reports  of  cruelty  in  the  surrounding  coun- 
tries. The  discipline  of  the  German  soldiers  is  excellent, 
as  we  observed. 

78 


"To  the  truth  of  these  statements  we  pledge  our  pro- 
fessional and  personal  word. 

Roger  Lewis, 

The  Associated  Press; 

lEviN  S.  Cobb, 

Saturday  Evening  Post  and  Phila- 
delphia Public  Ledger; 

Harry  Hansen, 

Chicago  Daily  News; 

James  O'Donnell  Bennett  and 
John  T.  McCutchean, 
Chicago  Tribune." 

Ex-U.  S.  Senator  Wm.  A.  Clark,  of  Montana,  emphatically 
denied  the  story  told  that  he  had  been  giving  shelter  to  persons 
maltreated  by  the  Germans.  He  stated  that  he  neither  wit- 
nessed nor  knew  of  any  "German  atrocities.'' 

A  German  Army  Ruley-^ 

Now,  it  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  when  a  German  army 
invests  a  town,  a  proclamation  is  at  once  posted  on  the  prin- 
cipal buildings  and  explained  to  the  inhabitants  by  local  offi- 
cials, guaranteeing  the  integrity  of  the  town  itself,  the  safety 
of  the  property  and  person  of  the  inhabitants  and  the  payment 
for  all  supplies  furnished  by  them  to  the  Germans  for  so  long 
as  the  people  of  that  town  deliver  all  their  weapons  and  refrain 
from  attacking  or  molesting  the  German  troops. 

German  Soldiers  Orderly. 

English  newspapers  in  chronicling  the  orderly  passage  of 
the  German  troops  through  Brussels,  compared  it  to  a  magnifi- 
cent military  parade,  and  conceded  that  all  purchases  in  Brus- 
sels by  German  officers  and  troops  were  promptly  and  fully 
paid  for.     Even  at  lamented  Louvain,  whose  partial  destruc- 

79 


tion  was  brought  about  by  the  fact  that  the  Belgian  municipal 
authorities  had  organized  the  civilian  population,  armed  it 
even  with  machine  guns,  and  forced  this  mob  to  make  furious 
onslaughts  upon  the  unsuspecting  German  troops,  German 
soldiers  carried  priceless  paintings  from  burning  buildings  and 
stored  them  safely  beyond  the  fire  zone.  Even  English  and 
French  critics  could  not  and  did  not  find  any  fault  with  the 
conduct  of  the  German  troops  who  occupied  Liege  and  pleas- 
antly mingled  with  her  citizens  after  successfully  bombarding 
some  of  her  encircling  forts. 

The  German  army  symbolizes  ethical  seriousness  and  iron 
discipline.     The  scientist    and    the    artist  stand  shoulder  to 
shoulder  in  the  ranks  with  the  farmer  and  the  mechanic. 
Arno  Dosch,  a  correspondent  of  World's  Work,  says: 

"I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  horrible  Ger- 
man atrocities  reported  from  Belgium  and  I  am  inclined 
to  discredit  them.  The  Germans  tell  many  stories  of 
Belgian  atrocities,  most  of  which  I  believe.  In  Brussels 
and  elsewhere  Belgian  civilian  men  were  executed  for 
firing  on  German  soldiers  from  the  inside  of  buildings, 
but  I  know  of  no  women  or  children  being  killed  because 
of  their  having  been  found  in  buildings  from  which  shots 
were  fired.'^ 
Lieut.  A.  E.  Brown  of  the  16th  Infantry,  U.  S.  A.,  says : 

"I  saw  Capt.  Parker  of  the  U.  S.  Army,  who  had  also 
been  in  the  Meaux  district,  and  he  told  me  that  the  Ger- 
mans were  very  friendly  with  the  French  peasants  while 
they  were  in  the  district.  As  all  of  the  men  had  gone  to 
the  front,  the  German  soldiers  helped  the  women  chop 
wood  and  draw  water,  and  aided  them  in  every  way.  As 
for  atrocities,  I  saw  no  indication  whatever  of  them." 

Punishment  Due  ^^Snipers/' 

According  to  the  recognized  and  universally  accepted  prin- 
ciples of  international  law,  severe  punishment  is  justifiable  and 

80 


therefore  due  to  any  town  or  territory  whose  non-combatant 
citizens  indulge  in  any  "sniping"  or  other  offensive  attacks 
against  the  invading  army. 

An  impartial  analysis  of  every  instance  of  actual  punish- 
ment of  communities  by  the  destruction  of  property  by  fire  or 
the  shooting  of  individuals  will  always  show  that  the  Germans 
acted  only  in  their  own  defense  and  strictly  within  their  legal 
rights  as  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  war  governing  all  civilized 
nations.  Brussels  and  Ghent  did  not  share  the  fate  of  Louvain 
because  their  inhabitants  did  not  offer  any  resistance  to  the 
German  troops. 

The  atrocities  were  perpetrated  as  a  rule  against  the  Ger- 
mans by  non-combatants  and  the  punishment  inflicted  by  the 
Germans  on  these  guerillas  was  strictly  in  line  with  the  rules 
and  regulations  of  legitimate  warfare.  In  this  connection  it  is 
especially  noteworthy  to  record  the  fact  that  the  British  war 
office  states  officially  that  it  knows  of  no  barbarities  committed 
by  the  Germans.  That  of  itself  is  the  best  possible  evidence  in 
favor  of  German  humanity  and  against  the  absolutely  un- 
founded "German  Barbarity." 

The  Uhlans, 

While  The  Ananias  Club  months  ago  hung  out  the  sign 
"Standing  room  only,"  the  reincarnation  of  Baron  von  Mtinch- 
hausen  has  recently  been  heard  from.  He  has  "discovered^'  that 
the  Uhlans  are  a  semi-cannibalistic  tribe  of  bloodthirsty  cut- 
throats that  are  assembled  by  the  Kaiser  only  when  pillaging, 
arson,  thievery  and  murder  are  to  be  perpetrated — ^in  short  a 
horde  of  dare-devil  desperados  that  even  such  unsavory  gun- 
men as  the  Cossacks,  and  Turcos  would  not  deign  to  notice.  As 
a  liar  this  man  has  few  equals  and  he  himself  knows  it.  The 
facts  are — the  regiments  of  Uhlans  belong  to  the  crack  cavalry 
corps  of  the  regular  army  organization — the  Uhlans  are  trained 
to  ride  like  Centaurs  and,  in  time  of  war,  to  fight  like  gentle- 
men.    Fortunately  this  prevaricator  has  made  the  lie  so  in- 

81 


famously  monstrous  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  it  will  defeat 
its  own  purpose. 

^  Character  of  German  Soldiers. 

No  one  with  a  criminal  record  can  become  a  soldier  in  the 
German  army.  Men  of  the  mental  and  moral  calibre  of  the 
German  rank  and  file  do  not  stoop  to  such  ignoble  cruelties  as 
are  the  fiendish  delight  of  the  barbaric  Cossacks  and  Turcos, 
and  the  savage  Indian  troops  now  fighting  with  the  English. 

The  latter  are  reported  to  be  so  bloodthirsty  as  to  often  be 
uncontrollable,  even  murdering  German  war  prisoners  on  sev- 
eral occasions. 

Mines. 

Among  the  most  important  accessories  of  modern  marine 
warfare  mines  rank  very  highly  for  defense  and  the  mining  of 
certain  sections  of  the  North  Sea  by  the  Germans  has  been  car- 
ried out  as  a  defense  against  an  onslaught  by  England's  navy. 
The  laying  of  mines  by  Germany  has  been  done  strictly  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  provisions  proposed  at  the  Hague  Confer- 
ence of  1907.  While  England  loudly  decries  Germany's  min- 
ing methods  she  not  only  does  not  object  when  any  other  coun- 
try adopts  the  same  protective  method  but  she  now  uses  mines 
herself,  thereby  endangering  neutral  shipping  in  those  waters. 

Of  the  84  mines  reported  in  February,  1915,  to  have  drifted 
on  the  shores  of  Holland  from  the  North  Sea,  9  are  officially 
reported  to  be  French,  2  Dutch  and  the  rest,  73,  British. 

The  Norwegian  Admiral  Dawes  reports  that  the  mines 
drifted  on  the  South  Coast  of  Norway  are  English  mines. 

England's  Starvation  Tactics. 

This  tremendous  international  struggle  beginning  with 
Servia  in  the  focus  of  the  searchlight,  dragging  in  nation  after 
nation  until  practically  all  of  Europe,  the  most  of  Asia  and  a 
part  of  Africa  were  at  each  others'  throats  is  gradually  but 
surely  resolving  itself  into  a  death-grip  between  England  and 

82 


Germany.  Forgotten  is  the  Servian  assassination — forgotten 
is  the  violation  of  Belgium's  hypothetical  neutrality;  to  their 
"crush  Germany"  has  now  been  added  "starve  Germany." 

A  former  Dutch  War  Minister  says  in  the  Hague  "Niewe 
Courant"  "The  attempt  to  starve  out  a  whole  nation  as  it  is  used 
in  the  present  war  is  new  and  unheard  of  and  so  cruel  that 
it  is  hardly  believable." 

That  starvation  slogan  is  a  two-edged  sword;  it  can 
cut  both  ways.  Booth  proved  that  one-third  of  England's 
population  is  always  on  the  verge  of  starvation.  England's 
pantry  is  none  too  well-stocked  now.  Let  Germany  stop  the 
influx  of  foodstuffs  into  England  for  only  a  few  weeks  and 
London's  bread  riot  would  double-discount  Zeppelin  in  disturb- 
ing the  placid  stolidity  of  that  anti-Teutonic  triumvirate,  As- 
quith,  Churchill  and  Kitchener. 

In  retaliation  for  England's  declaration  of  a  "starvation 
zone"  around  Germany  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  absolutely 
isolating  Germany  and  Austria  from  all  direct  maritime  busi- 
ness with  the  rest  of  the  world  and  cutting  off  all  food  and  other 
supplies  from  them,  Germany  encircled  "the  tight  little  isle" 
England  with  a  "submarine  zone."  By  a  specious  brand  of  logic 
typically  British,  England  confiscated  many  shiploads  of  meat 
products,  valued  at  |15, 000,000,  consigned  by  American  shippers 
to  neutral  ports,  claiming  that  these  cargoes  were  really  in- 
tended for  "the  enemy"  and  therefore  contraband  and  not  to 
be  paid  for — a  neat  little  contribution  to  England's  kitchen. 
The  "starvation  zone"  is  England's  development  of  her  inhuman 
"concentration  camps"  idea.  It  is  Boer-ism  plus  Weyler-ism  in 
Cuba.  But  unless  my  personal  knowledge  of  foodstuff  condi- 
tions in  Germany  and  Austria  is  wrong,  this  English  embargo 
on  food,  medicine  and  other  supplies  to  Germany  and  Austria 
will  not  be  any  more  effective  than  has  been  the  fighting  of  her 
parti-colored  troops.  Not  only  has  Germany  conserved  her 
food  supply  but  her  money  supply  is  abundant  and  is  a  surprise 

83 


to  the  world's  bankers,  as  is  shown  by  the  latest  financial  re- 

^^^  ^'  Germany's  Submarines. 

No  nation  has  so  many  or  such  efficient  submarines  as  Ger- 
many. Their  utility  as  "Commerce  Destroyers"  has  been 
abundantly  established  in  this  war.  The  Laws  of  Humanity 
govern  the  operations  of  these  minor  craft  just  as  they  do  the 
major  arm  of  the  German  navy.  When  the  British  Censor 
allows  such  data  to  pass  as  that  "before  sinking  an  enemy 
the  German  submarine  commander  gives  time  and  opportunity 
for  both  passengers  and  crew  to  leave  their  ship  and  even  in 
many  cases  gives  these  lifeboats  a  *tow'  to  safe  waters  at  the 
imminent  risk  to  the  Germans  of  attack  by  British  and  French 
warships"  no  stronger  proof  can  be  asked  or  could  be  given 
of  the  truth  of  the  statement  that  the  Germans  "fight  fair"  and 
are  humane  to  a  previously  unheard  of  degree.  This  is  over- 
whelming evidence  in  favor  of  Germany  and  her  respect  for 
Humanity  and  her  invariable  practice  of  humaneness. 

England's  Yacillation  and  Retaliatory  Methods 
in  matters  pertaining  to  contraband — declaring  contraband, 
articles  always  heretofore  non-contraband  —  have  caused 
great  annoyance  and  worse  hardships  to  the  shippers  of 
America  and  other  neutral  countries.  This  British  policy  dis- 
regards international  precedents  and  rulings  made  at  the  Lon- 
don convention.  While  it  is  true  that  20th  century  warfare 
adds  for  the  first  time  air-craft  and  the  submarine,  thereby 
creating  new  and  unprecedented  conditions  and  that  these  con- 
ditions are  the  direct  reason  for  the  retaliatory  methods  that 
have  been  adopted  by  both  sides,  it  cannot  be  too  strongly  em- 
phasized that  these  conditions,  because  new  and  heretofore  un- 
tried and  therefore  not  perfectly  understood  by  non-combatant 
nations  have  not  in  a  single  instance  been  put  into  operation 
by  Germany  Until  full  and  definite  information  has  been  given 
to  the  world  by  Germany.  Humanity  is  unchanged  and  Hu- 
maneness should  not  be  changed  even  in  time  of  war.     Food- 

84 


stuffs  and  other  supplies  to  and  for  non-combatants  heretofore 
considered  non-contraband  by  all  nations  should  for  Human- 
ity's sake  not  be  treated  as  they  are  now  by  England. 

The  New  York  Sun  says  editorially  on  May  5th,  1915: 
*  *  *  "Great  Britain  has  knocked  the  principle  of  free 
ships,  free  goods,  and  other  principles  dear  to  neutrals,  into 
cocked  hats;  and  has  intimated  that  if  the  neutrals  don't  like 
it,  why  she  is  sorry,  but  cannot  change  her  plans.  Protest  in 
Great  Britain's  view  is  academic  and  an  inconsiderate  waste 

of  time." 

American  Neutrality. 

The  Duke  of  Abruzzi,  speaking  for  the  American  citizens 
spending  the  winter  of  1914-1915  in  Italy  made  this  significant 
protest  to  the  mayor  of  Boston :  "Never  in  the  history  of  nations 
have  orders  of  such  gigantic  proportions  been  accepted  by  any 
country  as  those  now  being  executed  in  America  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  European  war.  America's  unlimited  supply  of 
death-dealing  machinery  will  cause  an  indefinite  prolongation 
of  this  murder  of  mankind." 

Belgian  Belief. 

Our  own  American  people  with  that  generosity  always 
typical  of  this  country  quickly  opened  purse  and  granary  and 
sent  vast  stores  of  food,  medicine  and  clothing  to  the  stricken 
Belgians,  without  which  millions  of  these  people  must  have 
starved,  for  it  was  and  now  more  than  ever  is  impossible  for 
Germany  to  feed  the  large  number  of  people  absolutely  de- 
pendent upon  public  charity  for  their  existence.  And  to  their 
credit  it  must  be  said  that  General  von  Bissing,  the  military 
Governor  of  Belgium  under  German  rule,  has  rigidly  enforced 
the  rule  that  everything  sent  to  the  Belgian  Relief  Committee 
must  be  protected.  Placards  are  placed  on  all  trains  bearing 
such  supplies  and  on  all  central  stores  reading:  "This  food  is 
under  protection  of  the  Commission.  It  must  not  be  disturbed." 
Dr.  Percy  H.  Williams  of  the  College  of  Physicians  and  Sur- 

85 


geons,  Columbia  University,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  distribu- 
tion of  food  at  Liege,  says :  "During  the  time  I  was  feeding  these 
900,000  people  in  the  province  of  Liege  I  never  saw  one  German 
soldier  take  a  single  particle  of  food  from  the  Belgians."  He 
further  states :  "As  a  surgeon,  I  made  a  point  of  visiting  some 
of  the  hospitals,  and  I  saw  no  wounds  of  atrocity  on  the  persons 
of  the  Belgians.    So  far  as  I  know  there  had  been  no  atrocities." 

Pan-Germanism. 

Every  country  houses  a  number  of  prolific  pens  that  are 
directed  by  bright  but  erratic  brains.  These  writers  are  they 
who  father  the  many  eccentric  "cults"  and  "isms."  As  a  rule 
they  are  not  taken  seriously  in  their  own  homelands  except  by 
a  negligible  minority  of  adherents.  Of  such  movements  are  the 
Alliance  Frangaise,  the  Irredentists  of  Italy  and  the  Pan-Ger- 
manists. 

The  Pan-Germanistic  movement,  in  which  England  now 
sees  a  more  direful  danger  to  the  world^s  peace  than  anyone 
has  yet  discerned  in  the  culmination  of  Eussia's  Pan-Slavic  pro- 
gram, has  never  had  the  endorsement  of  the  Kaiser,  the  Ger- 
man Government,  nor  indeed  of  many  of  the  truly  representa- 
tive thinkers  of  Germany.  General  von  Bernhardi,  a  prolific 
writer  on  military  matters  and  the  "prophet,  priest  and  king" 
of  the  Pan-Germanistic  movement,  never  spoke  or  wrote  on 
that  topic  with  Governmental  authority,  either  while  he  was  an 
officer  in  the  German  army  or  after  the  Kaiser  removed  him 
from  the  army  some  five  years  ago.  Bernhardi  expressed  his 
own  views,  not  those  of  the  Kaiser,  nor  of  the  Imperial  Gov- 
ernment, nor  yet  those  of  the  German  people  as  a  whole.  The 
proposed  plan  to  incorporate  with  the  German  Empire  the  Ger- 
man-speaking sections  of  Austria,  and  to  assimilate  as  well  the 
Germanic  parts  of  Russia's  Baltic  provinces  as  well  as  to  unite 
all  Germans  in  all  foreign  countries  for  the  common  good  of 
the  German  race  was  never  endorsed  but  was  frequently  re- 
buked by  the  Kaiser,  the  Government  and  the  most  representa- 

86 


tive  Grermans  in  both  o^cial  and  private  life.  It  was  Bern- 
hardi's  persistent  Pan-Germanistic  propaganda  that  led  to  his 
dismissal  by  the  Kaiser.  The  fact  that  only  about  6,000  copies 
of  Bernhardi's  book  were  sold,  should  be  an  absolute  proof  that 
Germany  with  her  65,000,000  inhabitants  was  not  especially 
interested  in  Bernhardi's  doctrines.  But  for  this  war  even 
England  would  probably  not  have  tried  so  strenuously  to  make 
it  appear  that  Bernhardi's  utterances  were  inspired  by  the 
Kaiser  and  expressed  officially  the  Imperial  Government's  plans 
for  an  immense  territorial  expansion. 

Pan-Slavism  vs.  Pan-Germanism. 

Pan-Slavism  is  a  reality  heartily  endorsed  by  the  Czar  and 
the  Russian  Government — the  165,000,0-00  semi-barbarian  Rus- 
sian people,  seven-eighths  of  whom  can  neither  read  nor  write, 
have  no  direct  voice  in  the  matter. 

Pan-Germanism  is  the  irridescent  dream  of  a  few  erratic 
writers  and  political  agitators  and  is  neither  endorsed  nor 
tacitly  tolerated  by  the  Kaiser,  the  German  Government,  nor 
the  great  majority  of  the  cultured,  educated  German  people. 

The  enormous  difference  between  these  two  "isms"  will  be 
at  once  apparent  to  all  fair-minded  men.  Bernhardi  and  his 
co-operators  do  not  now  and  never  have  voiced  the  aims,  aspira- 
tions or  ambitions  of  Germany  or  the  German  spirit.  The 
favorite  slogan  of  the  war  party  of  which  Bernhardi  is  one  of 
the  most  eloquent  mouthpieces,  i.  e.,  "World  Power  or  Down- 
fall," is  not  the  creed  of  the  Kaiser  nor  the  German  Empire. 
In  all  fairness,  why  hold  the  Kaiser  and  Germany  responsible 
for  the  preachments  of  discredited,  unauthorized,  irresponsible 
individuals,  publications  and  organizations?  All  that  Germany 
asks  for  is  fair  play. 

Turkey's  Reason  for  War, 

Turkey  did  not  go  to  war  primarily  to  help  Germany.  She 
was  "between  the  Devil  and  the  deep  blue  sea."    She  knew  that 

87 


if  Germany  won,  her  own  territory  would  be  safe,  hence  to 
protect  her  own  interests  and  territory  she  fights  against  the 
Allies.  She  also  only  too  well  knows  that  if  the  Allies  win 
"the  handwriting  on  the  wall"  in  Russian  letters  will  be  "Take 
Constantinople  and  what  is  left  of  European  Turkey,"  and  that 
thus  Peter  the  Great's  "will"  would  be  probated  and  the  cen- 
turies-old Cossack  dream  would  come  true! 

Talaat  Bey,  the  most  important  young  Turk  of  the  day,  said 
in  an  Associated  Press  interview  in  February,  1915 :  "Persia  is 
a  living  symbol  of  what  Turkey  would  have  become  if  we  had 
not  taken  part  in  this  present  war." 

iTALY^'s  Neutrality. 

That  Italy  is  indebted  to  Germany  for  her  integrity  as  a 
Kingdom  is  historic  and  we  are  reminded  of  that  fact  by 
Edoardo  Scarf oglia  in  Mattini  (Naples),  who  says:  "Germany 
never  did  anything  but  kindness  to  Italy.  We  owe  her  Venice 
and  Rome  and  our  success  in  1859.  For  30  years  we  were  allies 
of  Germany.    Why  should  we  now  fight  Germany?" 

Professor  George  B.  McClellan,  of  Princeton  University, 
says: 

"In  justice  to  the  Italian  people  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  they 
regard  their  countr/s  attitude  to  the  war  in  the  light  of  a  purely  national 
business  proposition  in  which  neither  altruism  nor  sentiment  ought  to  be 
nor  is  allowed  to  enter.  A  considerable  number  of  Italians  who  today 
advocate  intervention  on  behalf  of  the  Entente  believe  that  a  mistake 
was  made  by  the  Government  in  not  adhering  to  the  Triple  Alliance. 
They  think  that  had  this  been  done  the  war  would  have  ended  months 
ago  and  Italy  would  have  received  as  her  share  of  the  spoils,  not  only 
the  Trentino  and  Trieste,  but  also  Corsica,  Tunis,  and  part  of  Algeria 
and  Egypt.  They  argue  that  as  it  is  too  late  to  fight  with  the  central 
empires  the  next  best  thing  is  to  fight  against  them.  It  is  entirely  a  mat- 
ter of  business." 

The  Italian  paper  "Concordia"  says : 

"To  preserve  Italy's  honor,  her  immediate  interests  and  to  further 
her  future  developments,  we  should  remain  an  ally  of  Germany.  Noth- 
ing can  justify  our  sedition  after  we  have  declared  our  neutrality  and 
have  completed  our  mobilization.  Only  the  senseless  mania  for  expan- 
sion and  aggrandizement  of  our  Nationals  and  the  perfidious  plans  of  our 

88 


revolutionists  clamor  for  the  most  dastardly  treason  that  could  be  com- 
mitted. We  must  not  forget  that  Eussia  will  never  consent  to  our  sole 
domination  of  the  Adriatic,  even  if  it  is  promised  to  us  by  the  Allies.  In 
case  of  the  defeat  of  Germany  and  Austria  the  slavish  imperialism  will 
have  clear  sailing." 

Further,  it  is  credibly  stated  that  the  King  of  Italy  has 
given  his  word  of  honor  to  the  German  Emperor  that  rather 
than  countenance  Italy's  fighting  against  Germany — recogniz- 
ing that  he  may  not  be  able  to  control  the  extremists — ^he  will 
abdicate  his  throne. 

It  is  now  reported  that  Austria  has  practically  granted 
every  demand  made  by  Italy.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  Italy 
put  in  these  demands  the  maximum  price  for  her  maintenance 
of  neutrality.  If  in  spite  of  Austria's  absolute  acquiescence 
in  Italy's  demands,  Italy  still  joins  the  Allies  there  can  be  but 
one  construction  put  on  it.     The  Allies  bid  higher. 

The  Wak^s  Lessons. 
The  New  York  Evening  Post  says  editorially  on  March  6th, 

1915:  ^^It  is  the  mobilization  of  the  German  people  rather 
than  that  of  the  German  army  which  will  he  best  remem- 
bered when  the  lessons  of  the  war  come  to  be  studied 
*  *  *  .  The  great  lesson  is  not  concerned  with  the  arts 
of  war,  but  with  the  arts  of  peace.  It  is  a  higher  pre- 
paredness which  takes  in  every  aspect  of  the  national 
life  ♦  ♦  ♦,  The  really  impressive  thing  is  the  way 
in  which  German  national  unity  was  translated  into 
national  co-operation  and  practical  effect.  To  dismiss 
it  all  as  the  result  of  Prussian  drill  would  be  idle.'' 

How  Long  Will  this  Wae  Last? 
England  says  "until  Germany  is  crushed."  France  says, 
^'until  we  have  had  our  complete  Revanche."  Russia  says, 
"until  our  Cossacks  gallop  down  Unter-den-Linden."  Ger- 
many and  Austria  say,  "until  Right  conquers  Wrong."  Who 
knows?  Perhaps  as  long  as  bullion,  bullets,  bread  and  brave 
boys  last. 

89 


The  longer  it  lasts,  the  greater  the  carnage,  the  more  abso- 
lute the  ruin,  financial  and  social,  and  the  weaker  will  be  both 
victor  and  vanquished,  for  no  matter  how  it  ends  the  effects  of 
this  awful  war  will  be  felt  for  generations. 

And  the  End? 

What  will  be  the  end  of  this  war  none  can  even  approxi- 
mately foresee  or  prophecy. 

Germany's  success  would  be  the  triumph  of  civilization  over 
intrigue  and  threatened  Russian  despotism. 

Germany's  defeat  would  be  the  eventual  consummation  of 
centuries  of  Cossack  scheming,  for  "crafty  Russia"  would  ere 
long  outwit  or  outfight  "perfidious  Albion"  and  then  the  Czar 
would  rule  all  of  Europe  and  the  crack  of  the  Cossack's  knout 
and  the  clanking  of  Siberian  chains  would  replace  the  "rattle 
of  the  Prussian  sabre"  which  the  anti-militarists  have  so  bit- 
terly denounced  during  the  past  twenty  years.  Thus  would 
Barbarism  crush  Civilization.  Thus  would  the  Sword  prove 
to  be  mightier  than  the  Pen. 

The  bodies  of  the  flower  of  her  young  and  middle-aged  man- 
hood will  litter  her  fields  already  soaked  inches  deep  with  their 
life  blood.  The  tears  of  her  widows  and  orphans  will  drop 
unceasingly  for  many  years  to  come  in  the  sorrowful  shadows 
of  their  disrupted  and  dismantled  hearthstones.  Civilization 
will  be  crucially  crippled  for  generations.  The  hands  of  the 
clock  of  peaceful  destiny  will  be  irrevocably  turned  back  for 
half  a  century  and  the  irreparable  loss  of  life  and  treasure  will 
be  a  crushing  yoke  on  the  necks  of  generations  yet  unborn! 

One  thing  we  all  know 

Europe  will  he  hied  white. 


90 


The  Sinking  of  the  Lusitania. 

Just  before  going  to  press  with  this  edition  the  giant  Cnnarder 
Lusitania  was  torpedoed  a  few  miles  off  the  southeast  coast  of  Ireland 
and  within  about  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  sank,  carrying  with  her  over 
1,000  persons,  including  more  than  100  Americans.  No  one  can  more 
deeply  regret  than  I  that  a  single  American  life  was  lost ;  nor  can  anyone 
more  profoundly  regret  than  I  that  this  submarine  attack  not  only 
sounded  the  death-knell  of  so  many  innocent  non-combatants  but  also 
precipitated  an  avalanche  of  unreasoning  vituperation  aimed  against 
Germany  and  immeasurably  intensified  an  anti-German  animosity  that, 
among  thinking  men,  had  begun  to  be  replaced  by  a  well-founded  belief 
that  the  German  Cause  was  the  Cause  of  Right. 

From  my  personal  view-point — and  that  is  a  strictly  unbiased  one — 
it  is  very  imfair  to  both  sides  to  go  off  at  a  tangent  and  bitterly  denounce 
Germany  as  a  nation  of  Pirates  and  Murderers  without  waiting  for  the 
evidence  that  should,  and  no  doubt  will  result  from  an  impartial  interna- 
tional investigation  of  the  causes  that  led  to  this  deadly  climax  of  sub- 
marine activity. 

Some  of  our  great  metropolitan  dailies  present  only  the  English 
viewpoint  to  which  is  added  much  editorial  invective  and  virulence.  All 
this  tends  to  obscure  the  main  point  at  issue — the  retaliatory  methods 
forced  upon  Germany  for  the  operation  of  her  submarines  as  Commerce 
Destroyers. 

No  argument  that  would  throw  a  ray  of  light  upon  the  reasons  for 
Germany's  adoption  of  the  existing  methods  for  operating  her  submarines 
in  the  "war  zone/'  which  like  a  hidden  steel  girdle  encircles  England's 
main  seaports,  ever  finds  space  in  the  columns  of  these  papers.  In  justice 
both  to  the  land  of  my  birth  and  to  my  adopted  country,  I  have  collated 
and  here  present  a  digest  of  legal  and  other  opinions  worthy  of  careful 
consideration,  for  I  am  more  convinced  now  than  ever  that  what  my 
fellow-Americans  want  above  all  else  are  the  REAL  FACTS  on  which 
to  base  their  own  judgment. 

The  New  York  Sun  of  May  13th,  '15,  thus  succinctly  presents  the 
German  viewpoint :  "The  war  has  become  a  war  of  supplies.  England 
hopes  to  make  Germany  yield  by  starving  her  out.  Germany  intends  to 
deprive  England,  as  far  as  possible,  of  the  war  supplies  she  is  getting 
from  neutrals.  Which  is  the  more  humane,  trying  to  starve  60,000,000 
people — in  violation  of  the  Declaration  of  London  and  international  law 
— or  torpedoing  ships  carrying  contraband  of  war?     The  Lusitania  was 

91 


carrying  contraband  of  war.  Warnings  had  been  given  of  what  might 
happen,  and  as  the  British  Government  had  ordered  its  merchant  vessels 
to  ram  German  submarines  no  further  warning  could  be  given.  The 
loss  of  life  is  regretted  but  it  does  not  alter  the  German  point  of  view." 

In  the  London  "Illustrated  War  News"  for  April  7th,  1915,  appears 
an  illustration  of  one  of  the  English  passenger  boats,  showing  one  of 
the  cannons  used  in  arming  that  branch  of  the  service  and  this  is  accom- 
panied by  this  inquiry :  "Why  could  not  every  merchant  vessel  be  armed 
against  the  attacks  of  our  enemy^s  submarines  ?  This  is  one  of  the  two 
cannons  which  certain  of  our  passenger  steamers  are  carrying." 

"The  Pioneer  Press"  of  St.  Paul,  Minn.,  in  its  issue  of  May  12, 
1915,  publishes  this  dispatch  from  Iowa  City,  Iowa:  'William  D. 
Peterburs,  formerly  connected  with  the  military  department  of  the 
Iowa  University,  now  residing  here,  declares  that  the  Lusitania  has 
always  been  armed,  and  that  she  carried  two  cannons  during  the  five 
trips  when  he  was  Deck  Officer.  Peterburs  is  ready  to  swear  that  as 
long  as  he  was  engaged  on  board  the  Lusitajiia  she  was  flying  the  flag  of 
the  Marine  Eeserve  of  Great  Britain,  and  that  she  was  recorded  in  the 
list  of  armed  vessels." 

How  is  Germany  to  know  which  of  these  passenger  steamers  are 
thus  armed  or  not?  Bear  in  mind  that  at  the  order  of  the  British 
Admiralty  all  English  merchantmen  were  ordered  to  "ram'^  all  German 
submarines  on  sight.  A  number  of  these  submarines  have  already  been 
rammed  or  destroyed  according  to  the  English  reports.  They  are  all 
liable  to  the  same  sort  of  attack.  Further  it  is  generally  conceded  that 
it  is  not  possible,  except  at  an  unjustifiable  risk  for  the  submarine,  to 
attempt  to  stop  these  vessels  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  search  of  the 
manifest  and  cargo,  for  to  do  so  would  in  the  great  majority  of  cases 
result  in  the  destruction  of  the  submarine. 

The  Germans  could  undoubtedly  have  selected  a  point  for  their 
attack  on  the  Lusitania  much  farther  from  shore  and  the  fact  that  they 
selected  a  point  comparatively  near  to  the  coast  is  an  argument  in  favor 
of  the  German  contention  that  it  was  not  their  purpose  to  do  more  than 
slowly  sink  the  Lusitania  which  would  have  allowed  an  abundance  of 
time  for  the  safe  debarkation  of  all  of  the  passengers. 

As  is  emphatically  pointed  out  elsewhere  in  this  addendum,  but  one 
torpedo  was  fired  at  the  Lusitania.  The  reported  statement  of  Capt. 
Turner  confirms  this. 

From  all  available  sources  of  information  the  real  cause  of  the 
sinking  of  the  Lusitania  was  the  explosion  of  the  highly  inflammable 
ammunition  in  her  holds. 

While  the  single  torpedo,  crashing  against  her  outer  skin  was  the 
primary  cause  of  the  disaster  it  will  no  doubt  be  eventually  established 
that  the  real  cause  was  the  subsequent  explosion,  for  in  no  other  way 

92 


could  this  oceanic  leviathan  have  been  so  quickly  and  completely  over- 
powered. 

It  has  also  been  most  emphatically  pointed  out  that  the  British 
Admiralty  was  most  severely  censurable  for  permitting  non-combatants, 
in  such  numbers,  to  take  passage  on  the  Lusitania  when  she  was  practic- 
ally a  floating  arsenal,  and  therefore,  in  international  law,  liable  to  attack. 

From  that  unimpassioned  view-point,  this  dereliction  on  the  part  of 
the  British  Admiralty  makes  another  calamitous  chapter  in  the  history 
of  English  Diplomacy  which,  speaking  now  of  the  causative  factors 
of  this  war,  has  been  crucially  epitomized  by  Prof.  John  W.  Burgess,  who 
in  his  monograph  "The  European  War  of  1914;  Its  Causes,  Purposes  and 
Probable  Results,"  says:  "And  so  when  the  Russian  puppet  in  the  Bal- 
kans touched  the  match  to  the  train  that  had  thus  been  laid,  and  Austria- 
Hungary  sought  to  defend  its  own  house  against  the  conflagration,  the 
British  Government  encouraged  Servia  to  resist,  encouraged  Russia  to 
interfere,  encouraged  France  to  support  Russia  and  promised  her  own 
support  to  France/' 

We  thus  see  a  continuity  of  action  that  makes  the  questions  that  have 
been  recently  asked  by  many  Americans  and  particularly  by  Congressman 
Hobson  of  peculiar  significance. 

Congressman  Richard  Pearson  Hobson,  of  Alabama,  the  weU  known 
naval  constructor,  makes  the  following  statements  in  a  published  inter- 
view (New  York  Times,  May  15th,  1915) : 

"A  widowed  cousin  of  mine  applied  at  the  New  York  office  of  the 
Cunard  Line  for  passage  on  the  Lusitania,"  Congressman  Hobson  said. 
"The  booking  agent,  an  old  friend,  took  her  apart  and  told  her  that  the 
vessel  was  acting  under  Admiralty  orders  and  that  she  simply  must  not 
take  passage  on  it.  He  pledged  her  to  secrecy  until  after  the  trip.  This 
fact  brings  up  pertinent  questions. 

'^hy  did  not  the  Cunard  Company  give  to  all  parties  applying  for 
passage  the  same  human  advice  its  agent,  for  old  friendship  sake,  gave 
to  my  cousin,  instead  of  loading  the  vessel  down  with  a  full  passenger 
list,  including  many  distinguished  Americans,  whose  loss  would  neces- 
sarily strike  the  American  imagination? 

'TK^nowing  that  German  submarines  were  operating  south  of  the 
Irish  coast,  why  did  not  the  British  Admiralty,  which  controlled  the 
Lusitania's  movements,  order  her  to  use  the  uninfested  route  around 
the  north  of  Ireland? 

"Why  was  the  ship,  having  a  speed  of  twenty-five  and  a  half  knots 
— a  very  substantial  aid  to  security — ordered  by  the  British  Admiralty  to 
slow  down  to  seventeen  knots  in  the  danger  zone  ? 

'rSow  could  a  torpedo  sink  such  a  ship  in  twenty  minutes?  An 
elementary  knowledge  of  naval  architecture  would  convince  any  one  that 

93 


such  a  thing  is  impossible  unless  there  was  a  contributing  cause  inside 
the  vessel,  such  as  open  water-tight  doors  or  inside  explosion. 

"Why  was  there  no  protecting  convoy  in  the  danger  zone? 

"Why  was  there  no  consort  for  the  great  ship's  passengers'  lives, 
ready  for  rescue  work? 

"Why  was  there  no  preparation  along  the  shore?  Why  was  rescue 
work  so  slow  in  reaching  the  scene? 

"Why  was  it  possible,  in  a  smooth  sea,  within  sight  of  land,  in  the 
middle  of  the  day,  to  lose  so  many  lives  ? 

"Why  was  the  censorship  thrown  open  to  all  the  harrowing  details 
throughout  the  slow  and  inexplicable  work  of  the  recovery  of  the  bodies, 
while  secrecy  was  ordered  for  the  Admiralty  instructions,  under  which  the 
ship  proceeded  to  its  doom  ? 

"The  order  of  the  British  Admiralty,  instructing  British  merchant- 
men to  attack  with  the  ram  German  submarines  on  sight,  makes  all  the 
British  merchant  vessels  armed  and  resisting  toward  Grerman  submarines 
and  nullifies  their  claims  in  international  law  to  warning  and  immunity 
of  life  from  these  submarines. 

"Maintaining  our  position  toward  Germany,  as  defined  by  the  Presi- 
dent's note,  without  insisting  on  revocation  of  the  British  Admiralty's 
instruction,  is  equivalent  to  demanding  that  German  submarines  shall 
not  attack  British  merchant  vessels  with  American  lives  on  board,  while 
these  British  vessels  are  free  to  attack,  and  are  under  orders  to  attack, 
German  submarines.  So  Great  Britain  could  maintain  a  fleet  of  mer- 
chant vessels^  hunting  and  destroying  German  submarines  with  full  im- 
munity. The  submarine  is  the  weapon  of  the  gallant  and  weak  against 
the  strong,  and  cannot  and  should  not  be  thus  abolished. 

"There  could  be  no  possible  motive  for  Germany  wishing  to  destroy 
American  lives.  In  fact,  Germany  sought  by  extraordinary  warning  not 
to  destroy  American  lives,  and  her  commander  torpedoed  the  vessel  at  a 
point  nearest  the  shore,  where  it  was  presumable  there  would  be  ample 
time  for  the  rescue  of  life. 

"On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  full  motive  for  England  wishing  such 
a  tragedy — the  motive  for  thrusting  America  into  war  with  Germany. 
Our  own  self-respect,  and  our  position  in  history  demand,  at  least,  that 
we  should  find  out  the  facts  by  regular,  impartial  investigation  of  a  naval 
court.  We  could  not  condemn  the  basest  criminal  without  a  fair  trial. 
We  cannot  pass  judgment  on  a  fellow  Christian  people  simply  from  the 
charges  of  their  enemy,  given  by  a  burning  motive  to  embroil  us  in  war. 

"The  American  people  are  not  afraid  of  Germany  and  her  allies,  nor 
are  they  afraid  of  England  and  her  allies,  but  we  are  God-fearing  people, 
afraid  of  His  righteous  wrath.  We  are  not  too  proud  to  fight,  but  we  are 
too  brave  and  true  knowingly  to  do  wrong." 

94 


Oswald  G.  Yillard,  of  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  says  in 
that  paper  on  May  17th,  1915 :  ''Even  by  some  who  were  entirely  sym- 
pathetic with  the  actions  of  the  Administration  heretofore  it  has  been 
felt  that  there  was  a  certain  element  of  justice  in  the  German- American 
contention  that  the  Government  was  not  quite  so  severe  with  England 
as  with  Germany/' 

Philander  C.  Knox,  ex-Secretary  of  State,  says:  "Our  positive 
action  has  at  times  approached  dangerously  near  to  open  partisanship. 
.  .  .  I  am  unwilling  to  believe  that  this  was  intended  as  a  partisan 
act  in  favor  of  the  Allies  as  against  Germany;  and  yet,  unfortunately 
for  us,  there  is  much  in  the  situation  that  gives  ground  for  such  a  charge 
upon  the  part  of  the  German  government  and  the  German  people." 

Senator  Works  of  California  says :  '^I  have  believed  from  the  first 
that  we  should  be  neutral  and  furnish  no  war  materials  to  any  of  the 
belligerents.  When  the  British  government  blockaded  the  ports  of  Ger- 
many and  declared  its  intention  of  preventing  any  foodstuffs  from  being 
shipped  to  that  country,  we  should  have  said  to  England,  *If  you  blockade 
the  ports  of  the  Germans  against  our  people,  we  will  place  an  embargo 
against  the  shipment  of  arms  to  you  and  your  allies.' 

"The  British  blockade  destroyed  our  trade  with  Germany.  We  have 
been  furnishing  war  material  to  the  other  belligerents.  This  is  not 
neutrality." 

In  this  connection,  and  to  illustrate  the  Teutonic  idea  of  neutrality, 
it  will  be  food  for  thought  to  recall  that  passage  in  the  biography  of  our 
Ambassador  to  Berlin  during  the  Cuban  War,  in  which  it  is  pointed  out 
that  when  he  was  informed  by  the  U.  S.  Consul  at  Hamburg,  that  a 
boat  laden  with  ammunition  was  about  to  leave  Hamburg  for  Cuba — the 
ammunition  being  intended  for  use  against  our  troops — ^his  representa- 
tions to  the  German  Foreign  Office  were  listened  to,  and  although  by  that 
time  the  boat  had  already  left  Hamburg,  she  was  at  once  ordered  back 
and  was  forced  to  unload  her  cargo. 

Former  Congressman  Eichard  Bartholdt  says:  "The  American  citi- 
zen who  in  time  of  war  takes  passage  on  the  ship  of  a  belligerent,  with- 
draws himself  for  the  time  being  from  American  jurisdiction  and  per- 
sonally assumes  all  the  risks  of  such  a  venture  as  he  would  if  he  took 
a  walk  between  the  French  and  German  trenches.  It  was  on  this  theory 
that  our  Government  warned  Americans  to  leave  Mexico." 

Dr.  Reynolds  A.  Spaeth  of  Clark  College  says : 

'^ar  must  be  primarily  effective.  In  the  case  of  the  Lusitania  the 
observations  of  the  rules  of  humanity  would  have  rendered  war  ineffec- 
tive. When  a  submarine  attempts  the  "capture"  of  a  vessel  of  approxi- 
mately her  own  speed  or  slower  she  may,  after  warning  the  vessel  to 
stop,  follow  her  until  she  does  stop.  If  in  this  case  the  challenged 
vessel  attempts  to  escape  she  may  legitimately  be  torpedoed.     The  Lusi- 

95 


tania,  as  we  know,  depended  upon  her  speed  to  escape  submarine  attacks. 
It  is  a  physical  impossibility  for  a  vessel  of  her  size,  running  at  full 
speed,  to  stop  at  the  order  of  a  submarine.  Even  if  it  were  possible 
instantly  to  reverse  her  engines,  her  initial  velocity  would  still  be  so 
great  that  she  would  pass  the  challenging  submarine  even  though  the 
latter  should  follow  at  full  speed.  And  once  beyond  her  adversary  under 
these  circumstances,  there  would  be  nothing  to  prevent  her  ordering  full 
speed  ahead." 

Capt.  Turner,  who  was  in  command  of  the  Lusitania,  is  reported  to 
have  made  the  following  statement  when  before  the  Coroner  in  Ireland  at 
the  inquest :  "There  was  a  slight  shock  when  the  torpedo  struck  us.  Im- 
mediately there  was  another  report,  but  that  may  possibly  have  been  in- 
ternal." It  is  credibly  reported  that  the  Lusitania  carried  as  cargo 
large  quantities  of  ammunition  and  materials  for  the  production  of 
asphyxiating  gases.  Capt.  Turner  of  course  knew  about  this  and  that 
knowledge  made  his  reserved  reference  to  an  "internal  explosion'^  good 
logic  from  cause  to  effect. 

The  official  German  report,  as  published  in  the  metropolitan  papers, 
says  "that  one  torpedo  was  fired  at  the  Lusitania  and  that  the  second 
explosion  must  be  traced  back  to  the  ignition  of  quantities  of  ammuni- 
tion inside  the  ship." 

Dr.  Foss  of  Montana  is  quoted  as  saying:  "There  was  no  panic 
among  the  passengers.  Indeed,  there  was  more  excitement  among  the 
crew.  If  the  officers  and  crew  had  gone  to  the  boats  and  handled  them 
properly  500  more  persons,  possibly  1,000,  might  have  been  saved. 
Some  of  the  boats  were  badly  caulked  and  their  seams  were  starting. 

Governor  Brewer  of  Mississippi  says  "Americans  were  given  fair 
warning  to  stay  off.     They  knew  what  to  expect  and  took  the  risk." 

Senator  William  E.  Borah :  "That  disaster  and  the  loss  of  the  lives 
of  American  citizens  would  be  calculated  ordinarily  to  arouse  great  feel- 
ing throughout  the  country,  and  doubtless  the  American  people  do  feel 
deeply  upon  the  subject;  but  to  my  mind,  the  sinking  of  the  steamship 
of  a  foe  upon  which  happens  to  be  found  American  citizens  is  by  no 
means  to  be  compared  with  the  act  of  hunting  out,  robbing,  assaulting 
and  murdering  American  citizens  in  a  neighboring  country.  We  have 
lost  more  citizens  in  Mexico  than  we  will  lose  on  the  Lusitania,  and 
as  our  policy  with  reference  to  Mexico  seems  to  be  well  settled  and 
accepted,  there  is  no  possible  reason  why  we  should  apply  a  different 
policy  toward  Germany.  I  don't  anticipate  any  change  of  policy  because 
of  this  unfortunate  affair." 

Representative  W.  L.  Jones,  of  Washington:  "Our  citizens  have 
rights,  but  they  should  not  insist  on  exercising  them  in  a  way  likely  to 
involve  us  in  war.  When  they  sail  in  foreign  ships  into  dangerous  terri- 
tory they  should  understand  that  they  take  the  risk.  Innocent  people  at 
home  should  not  be  embroiled  in  war  on  their  account." 

96 


Representative  Caleb  Powers,  of  Kentucky:  "This  country  is  not 
the  insurer  of  either  the  lives  or  the  safety  of  the  citizens,  especially 
aboard  foreign  vessels,  who  of  their  own  volition  subject  themselves  to 
the  dangers  and  perils  of  the  war  zone,  and,  while  this  country  does  and 
should  deeply  deplore  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania,  yet  it  should  not  be 
involved  in  war  by  reason  thereof/^ 

Vice-President  Marshall  said  that  anyone  who  puts  his  foot  on  a 
ship  flying  the  English  flag  is  practically  on  English  soil. 

Senator  William  J.  Stone,  Chairman  Committee  on  Foreign  Rela- 
tions: "American  citizens,  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  went  aboard  a 
belligerent  ship  with  full  knowledge  of  the  risk  and  after  official  warning 
by  the  German  Government.  When  on  board  a  British  vessel  they  were 
on  British  soil.  Was  not  their  position  substantially  equivalent  to  being 
within  the  walls  of  a  fortified  city?  It  appears  to  me  that  from  our 
standpoint  as  a  neutral  nation,  the  Gulflight  case  presents  a  more  delicate 
and  serious  complication  than  the  case  of  the  Lusitania." 

Senator  T.  J.  Walsh :  "Our  citizens  must  yield  to  the  warning  given 
to  keep  out  of  the  waters  surrounding  Great  Britain  or  we  must  take  the 
other  alternative  and  make  war.  I  am  not  yet  prepared  to  declare  that 
either  interest  or  honor  requires  that  we  choose  the  latter." 

As  completely  summarizing  conservative  American  thought  that  is 
not  swayed  by  insensate  hatred  of  everything  teutonic  and  as  a  deserved 
tribute  to  the  loyalty  to  the  land  of  their  adoption,  of  the  American 
brethren  of  the  men  who  are  desperately  fighting  for  their  very  existence 
under  the  widespread  wings  of  the  Imperial  Eagle,  I  quote  in  part  a 
signed  article,  written  by  Herman  Ridder,  and  published  in  his  paper, 
The  Staats  Zeitung,  on  May  14,  1915,  under  the  heading 

"Press,  President  and  People.^^ 

.  .  .  "A  large  section  of  the  press  of  this  country  has  been  doing 
its  best  during  the  last  six  days  to  dictate  to  the  President  the  course 
which  he  shall  follow  in  handling  the  extremely  delicate  situation  which 
has  arisen  in  our  foreign  relations. 

These  papers  .  .  .  have  filled  their  columns  with  incendiary 
communications  which  neither  represent  public  opinion  nor  have  the 
redeeming  features  of  logic  or  truth.  They  have  reproduced  at  a  critical, 
and  as  they  perhaps  think  a  psychological,  moment,  extensi^'e  extracts 
from  the  British  report  on  "German  atrocities"  in  Belgium,  seeking  by 
the  circulation  of  this  rehash  of  stories  long  since  twice  told  and  long 
ago  disproved  to  further  inflame  the  passions  of  the  people. 

They  have,  moreover,  attempted  to  further  their  designs  of  pro- 
voking war  by  publishing  extracts  from  German  papers  commenting  on 
the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania,  intended  to  maintain  popular  passions  in 

97 


this  country  at  white  heat.  While  the  wireless  installation  at  Sayville  is 
not  in  operation  these  extracts  come  to  us  through  London  and  are  well 
chosen  to  serve  the  purpose  of  the  British  Government.  They  are  but 
isolated  paragraphs  torn  from  their  context  in  certain  of  those  pestilential 
organs  of  which  Germany  has  her  share  as  well  as  we,  and  in  no  way 
represent  the  feelings  of  the  German  people  over  the  loss  of  the  Americans 
who  went  down  with  the  ill-fated  vessel. 

The  people  of  this  country  are  overwhelmingly  for  peace,  yet  a  large 
section  of  the  press  which  claims  to  serve  them  is  clamoring  for  war. 
This  element  was  successful  in  achieving  its  design  in  1898 ;  but  in  1915 
it  has  to  deal  with  a  President  who  bows  to  nothing  but  the  will  of  the 
people. 

The  American  press  seems  to  be  incapable  of  understanding  that 
this  is  no  time  for  war  talk.  The  people  of  the  country  have  been  suffi- 
ciently aroused  by  events.  There  is  no  occasion  to  further  inflame  their 
passions  by  specious  argument  or  baseless  insinuations.  The  President, 
with  great  wisdom  and  strength  of  mind,  has  striven  to  maintain  the 
peace  of  the  country  while  upholding  its  honor,  and  if  the  battle  goes 
against  him  and  we  are  plunged  into  a  war,  the  full  meaning  of  which 
no  one  can  foresee  but  the  horror  of  which  is  patent  to  all,  it  will  be  due 
to  the  clamor  of  a  few  irresponsible  papers."     .... 


In  marked  contrast  to  this  sincere  appeal  to  all  thinking  Americans 
to  maintain  unbroken  that  tie  of  brotherhood  between  America  and  Ger- 
many that  has  existed  ever  since  the  birth  of  this  nation  I  quote  the 
following  from  the  "London  New  Witness"  of  Jan.  21,  1915  (published 
in  the  ''Freeman's  Journal"  of  May  29,  1915) : 

''We  may  go  on  fighting  for  a  quarter  of  a  century — not  as  we  are 
fighting  to-day  over  hundreds  of  miles  of  trenches,  nor  as  we  fought 
Napoleon.  We  may  have  to  fight  the  United  Stated  and  subsidize 
South  America  and  Japan.  We  may  have  to  help  Roumania,  Italy,  and 
Servia  with  loans.  We  can  only  go  on  fighting  and  loaning  money  if  we 
heep  London  the  centre  of  the  money  of  the  world,  lending  everywhere, 
supplying  goods  everywhere,  stretching  out  our  hands  to  grasp  whatever 
we  can,  making  money  to  fight  with/* 


Sir  Percy  Scott,  an  Admiral  of  the  British  Navy  and  a  lord  of  the 
admiralty,  who  received  his  knighthood  from  the  British  crown,  writing 
in  the  "London  Times"  on  July  16,  1914,  fifteen  days  before  the  war- 
cloud  hurst  over  Europe,  quoted  this  from  an  un-named  foreign  naval 

98 


writer :  "If  we  went  to  war  with  an  insular  country,  depending  for  its 
food  on  supplies  from  overseas,  it  would  be  our  business  to  stop  that  sup- 
ply. On  the  declaration  of  war  we  should  notify  the  enemy  that  she 
should  warn  those  of  her  merchant  ships  coming  home  not  to  approach 
the  island,  as  we  were  establishing  a  blockade  of  mines  and  submarines. 
Similarly  we  should  notify  all  neutrals  that  such  a  blockade  had  been 
established,  and  that  if  any  of  their  vessels  approached  the  island  they 
would  be  liable  to  destruction  either  by  mines  or  submarines,  and  there- 
fore would  do  so  at  their  own  risk." 

Commenting  upon  this  Sir  Percy  Scott  said  in  the  course  of  his 
article:  "Such  a  proclamation  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  perfectly  in 
order,  and  once  it  had  been  made,  if  any  British  or  neutral  ships  disre- 
garded it  they  could  not  be  held  to  be  engaged  in  the  peaceful  avocations 
referred  to  by  Lord  Sydenham,  and  if  they  were  sunk  in  the  attempt  it 
could  not  be  described  as  a  relapse  into  savagery  or  piracy  in  its  blackest 
form.  If  Lord  Sydenham  will  look  up  the  accounts  of  what  usually 
happened  to  blockade  runners  into  Charleston  during  the  Civil  War  in 
America,  I  think  he  will  find  that  the  blockading  cruisers  seldom  had 
any  scruples  about  firing  into  vessels  they  were  chasing  or  driving  them 
ashore,  and  even  peppering  them  when  stranded  with  grape  and  shell. 
The  mine  and  the  submarine  torpedo  will  be  newer  deterrents." 


This  ante-bellum  opinion  of  a  British  Admiral,  as  applied  literally 
to  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania,  affords  additional  food  for  most  serious 
thought. 


99 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL    FINE      OF     25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


SEP    10  W» 


MAY   4   1939 


-^^ 

^ 

05,   "  ■ 

— 

57 

-5'" " 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


